Andre de Guise: business as usual - selling titles for US$50,000
mj...@btinternet.com
Here is an email sent by Andrew Hunter aka Andre de Guise on Friday (3
November 2006) to an enquirer about joining his "Order of the White
Greyhound". As you will see, de Guise is now well enough to be up to
his old tricks, trying to sell "feudal" titles for large sums of money:
From: levrierblanc
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:53:05 +0100
Subject: Name
"Reference to your message of the 1st November.
"I have thought quite deeply about what you say. To be recognised as a
Prince, it would be necessary to pass by Gotha International. To be
honest, I do not see the Council accepting any such claim, especially
since the descent seems to have passed through the female line [sic].
"Furthermore, I would recommend you not to try, since it might well
invite ridicule. What is done sometimes, in this country, is to make
reference to claims by putting them in brackets.
"On the other hand, we do have a Chevalier class. To join this, it
would be necessary to show good faith - this does not necessarily mean
money though that helps - and to have a authenticated coat-of-arms.
This latter is not a real problem since we know the Conseil Français
d'Héraldique well and this can be arranged. An accumulated sum of
over USD 5,000 is the usual target. We also have a class for
Seigneurs; this is for people who already hold recognised titles. This,
also, can be arranged by the tansfer [sic] of such an item but the
price is quite high (around USD 50,000). Here again, time and good
faith can work wonders.
"The other advantage we can offer is the chance to be involved with
some old and established families.
"A lot depends on how deeply you would wish to be involved. Since you
took the trouble to contact us, we would consider your heart to be in
the right place but it could cost time and some money.
"Let me know your feelings and whether you would like any further
advice. I would suggest that the best is to get cracking and we can
then negotiate something when we see how matters are developing. For
example, if you could sell things taken from the craftsofeurope.com
web, that would help a lot. I am still struggling with the PayPal
formula, by the way. Cheques (checks) work well too.
Salut
Andre de Guise"
Francois R. Velde
> From: levrierblanc
> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:53:05 +0100
> Subject: Name
> [...] To be recognised as a
> Prince, it would be necessary to pass by Gotha International. To be
> honest, I do not see the Council accepting any such claim, especially
> since the descent seems to have passed through the female line [sic].
> "Furthermore, I would recommend you not to try, since it might well
> invite ridicule.
How do you say "chutzpah" down under?
It certainly invites ridicule...
--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
mj...@btinternet.com
Francois R. Velde schrieb:
> In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit mj...@btinternet.com os suum:
> > From: levrierblanc
> > Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:53:05 +0100
> > Subject: Name
>
> > [...] To be recognised as a
> > Prince, it would be necessary to pass by Gotha International. To be
> > honest, I do not see the Council accepting any such claim, especially
> > since the descent seems to have passed through the female line [sic].
> > "Furthermore, I would recommend you not to try, since it might well
> > invite ridicule.
>
> How do you say "chutzpah" down under?
My favourite is "he has more hide than Jessie the elephant".
A good explanation here, about half way down:
http://warrenfahey.com/Sydney-Folklore/SECTION-14/sfp-section-14-SAYINGS.html
"The Council" apparently consists of "Prince Andre de Guise" [er,
claims title by female descent], "Prince Lucien de Guise" [um, ditto],
"Prince Damien de Guise" [hm, ditto] and N. Vandervall, "Baron of
Esnes" ['acquired' title by feudal transfer].
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
mj...@btinternet.com schrieb:
>
> "The Council" apparently consists of "Prince Andre de Guise" [er,
> claims title by female descent], "Prince Lucien de Guise" [um, ditto],
> "Prince Damien de Guise" [hm, ditto] and N. Vandervall, "Baron of
> Esnes" ['acquired' title by feudal transfer].
Recte: N. Vandervall *Coots*, "Baron of Esnes"
royal...@gmail.com
this man a descendant of de Guise that has simply adopted the name and
his title, or is it something much less?
William de Laune
www.royaltyintl.com
François R. Velde
>I've read a bit about Mr. de Guise but I am unclear on an issue. Is
>this man a descendant of de Guise that has simply adopted the name and
>his title, or is it something much less?
>
>William de Laune
>www.royaltyintl.com
Oh gee shucks I don't know, Mr. "wishes to remain anonymous for political and
social reasons". What do *you* think? What do the two other "princes" on your
brand new board think (Lucien and Damien, is it)? How about putting your own
[Guise] in brackets? How about putting the kibosh on the whole scam?
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Nathaniel Taylor
François R. Velde <ve...@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote:
> In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit royal...@gmail.com os suum:
> >
> >I've read a bit about Mr. de Guise but I am unclear on an issue. Is
> >this man a descendant of de Guise that has simply adopted the name and
> >his title, or is it something much less?
> >
> >William de Laune
> >www.royaltyintl.com
>
> Oh gee shucks I don't know, Mr. "wishes to remain anonymous for political and
> social reasons". What do *you* think? What do the two other "princes" on
> your
> brand new board think (Lucien and Damien, is it)? How about putting your own
> [Guise] in brackets? How about putting the kibosh on the whole scam?
Based on the kind of services his group intends to peddle, Mr. William
de Laune ought to be able to answer his own query.
But of course he's a noob and may need to be brought up to speed gently:
the website was actually registered just today (8 November). Mind the
wet paint!
Interesting about the three 'princes' on the board. Anonymity might
just accomplish the precise "political and social reasons" of preventing
(or delaying) their exposure as fantasists or swindlers, or both.
Can anyone take a stab at contextualizing the artfully arranged charges
on the group's clip-art arms? How about:
Battered castle surrenders to giant cephalopod?
or:
Lhasa Apso with oversized gorget flees crumbling ruin?
Nat Taylor
mj...@btinternet.com
royal...@gmail.com schrieb:
> I've read a bit about Mr. de Guise but I am unclear on an issue. Is
> this man a descendant of de Guise that has simply adopted the name and
> his title, or is it something much less?
>
> William de Laune
> www.royaltyintl.com
Let me get this right, "Bill":
You have set up a new organisation to research and validate "noble
titles", and you have to ask a newsgroup whether Andrew Hunter t/a
'Prince Andre de Guise' is a fake?
That's nearly as funny as de Guise himself purporting to act as a
referee of other people's claims - "existing princely or ducal families
as authenticated by Gotha International - despite having only
discovered through this forum what his own great-grandfather's name
was".
Here's a couple of news-flashes for you, given that you are incapable
of any research yourself, or even of understanding the material that
has been advanced for you to understand: Andrew Hunter has no known
relationship to the House of Lorraine, the Head of which has repudiated
him as a fake; his claimed titles are completely bogus; he purports to
sell "titles" - a practice you say you abhor; his "Order" is a rip-off
of an historical Company with which he has no connection whatsoever;
the genealogical "research" which he publishes is riddled with gross
errors; he accepts cheques, bank-transfers and, hopefully shortly,
paypal.
Does this help?
Good luck with your scam - we will be watching. In fact, I think I can
feel a new webpage coming up...
François R. Velde
>feel a new webpage coming up...
What makes you think your existing site isn't applicable?
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
mj...@btinternet.com
> In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit mj...@btinternet.com os suum:
> >Good luck with your scam - we will be watching. In fact, I think I can
> >feel a new webpage coming up...
>
> What makes you think your existing site isn't applicable?
I agree it is - I was just proposing a new page, not a new site.
Lucien and Damien, the junior "princes de Guise", by the way, appear to
be living in Malaysia, where the former, "an Oxford MA", is involved in
Islamic art, and the latter, "an Aberdeen MA" scribbles (like his
brother) for various Asian journals called "Tatler" - along with a
"Lady Athenee Sarah Hinton". Wonder who she is?
Michael Andrews-Reading
www.areyoubeingconned.com
royal...@gmail.com
Before you rush to impugn me and the RPSI, I ask you what exactly it is
that you think you are impugning? We sell nothing and adhere to the
most stringent standards for our members, of which there are many,
regardless of the date of our "web address."
Is it necessary to go down a dark road so early simply based on my
inquiry? Or are you so self-indulgence to possibly think we require
your approval?
As difficult as it may be for some, I would recommend you restrain
yourselves.
William de Laune
www.royaltyintl.com
François R. Velde
>
>Before you rush to impugn me and the RPSI, I ask you what exactly it is
>that you think you are impugning? We sell nothing and adhere to the
>most stringent standards for our members, of which there are many,
>regardless of the date of our "web address."
>
>Is it necessary to go down a dark road so early simply based on my
>inquiry? Or are you so self-indulgence to possibly think we require
>your approval?
Dear Mr. Anonymous for political and social reasons,
you invited us, by message
<1163017623....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
to take at look at your web site. In a separate message posted at the very same
time, you made your query as to Andrew Hunter a.k.a. [Guise].
Regarding the latter, all you have to do is read through Michael
Andrews-Reading's web pages at www.areyoubeingconned.com (a memorable URL).
Regarding the former, do not publicize your web site and then complain about the
attention it receives.
mj...@btinternet.com
royaltyi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> Before you rush to impugn me and the RPSI, I ask you what exactly it is
> that you think you are impugning? We sell nothing
According to your Membership page, you admit "holders of legitimate
royal and noble titles" for "free". Presumably therefore members who
are merely "descendants with no title rights" are not admitted for
free.
Additionally, you offer "validation" of questionable title claims, and
certifications ("letters patent"), and you offer to conduct research
into claims and pedigrees. Don't tell me you too are a charity and do
this for free?
> and adhere to the most stringent standards
Why then are you unable to apply these "most stringent standards",
research skills, validation processes etc to Andre de Guise/Andrew
Hunter? The facts are pretty obvious, but you seem unable to draw a
conclusion for yourself. Is that meant to inspire confidence in your
organisation's skills and self-proclaimed role?
> for our members, of which there are many,
Name some then.
> regardless of the date of our "web address."
>
> Is it necessary to go down a dark road so early simply based on my
> inquiry? Or are you so self-indulgence to possibly think we require
> your approval?
I see. Forgive me, but you are a completely unknown individual, acting
on behalf of an anonymous bunch of self-styled "experts", who
apparently can't make up his mind about a blatant fake. Moreover, you
came here, of your own volition, craving our indulgence for what you
described as your "gratuitous promotion", and now you want to complain
about coming under scrutiny. That seems a bit rich.
Despite your claims, your organisation is not a "fons honorum", and
nothing you've displayed so far suggests that it possesses any skills
or position of excellence in the fields of royalty, nobility, titles
etc. If you don't like the spotlight, why did you come here seeking
publicity in the first place?
Kind regards
Michael Andrews-Reading
www.areyoubeingconned.com
Turenne
Page? There's a book here somewhere...
Richard L
royal...@gmail.com
> >
> According to your Membership page, you admit "holders of legitimate
> royal and noble titles" for "free". Presumably therefore members who
> are merely "descendants with no title rights" are not admitted for
> free.
Yes, membership is free to all. However, given the number of
individuals that might claim to be a descendant of nobility or royalty
and request membership in accord with that, due diligence is required
and researching of such a claim is necessary. That research could take
as little as an hour to several hours. Researching ones pedigree is
not a service we provide gratis. An investigator researching any claim
is billed at $25 (US) per hour.
>
> Additionally, you offer "validation" of questionable title claims, and
> certifications ("letters patent"), and you offer to conduct research
> into claims and pedigrees. Don't tell me you too are a charity and do
> this for free?
We offer validation of claims that we can verify not claims that are
questionable. If a claim remains questionable after we have researched
it, we offer no validation.
>
> > and adhere to the most stringent standards
>
> Why then are you unable to apply these "most stringent standards",
> research skills, validation processes etc to Andre de Guise/Andrew
> Hunter? The facts are pretty obvious, but you seem unable to draw a
> conclusion for yourself. Is that meant to inspire confidence in your
> organisation's skills and self-proclaimed role?
If you'd like to employ an investigator through RPSI to perform such
research then we'd be happy to conduct the investigation. Otherwise, I
am simply an individual asking a question that was of my interest. Mr.
de Guise is not the center of my universe and I'd not heard of him
prior to reading this thread. It would be most unprofessional for me,
as a representative of RPSI, to assume the answer to a question with
having little knowledge prior. If anything, this should inspire
confidence that we do not jump to conclusions without having researched
an issue thoroughly.
> I see. Forgive me, but you are a completely unknown individual, acting
> on behalf of an anonymous bunch of self-styled "experts", who
> apparently can't make up his mind about a blatant fake. Moreover, you
> came here, of your own volition, craving our indulgence for what you
> described as your "gratuitous promotion", and now you want to complain
> about coming under scrutiny. That seems a bit rich.
Scrutiny is welcome. What is a bit rich is to make baseless
accusations regarding fraud.
>
> Despite your claims, your organisation is not a "fons honorum", and
> nothing you've displayed so far suggests that it possesses any skills
> or position of excellence in the fields of royalty, nobility, titles
> etc. If you don't like the spotlight, why did you come here seeking
> publicity in the first place?
>
Yes, forgive me then, I was under the impression that this was an
appropriate forum to discuss such matters of royalty and some here were
of a like mind in ferreting out fraudulent claims. I hadn't imagined
that I might fall victim to a mudslinging because I hadn't heard of an
individual that is reported to being a con.
Truly, I feel that you have schooled me justly. Questions are beneath
the majority here as are organizations that are formed with the purpose
of preserving royal and noble heritage.
Good day,
William de Laune
www.royaltyintl.com
Greg
On Nov 8, 8:15 pm, François R. Velde <v...@heraldicanospam.invalid>
wrote:
> In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit royaltyi...@gmail.com os suum:
>
> >I've read a bit about Mr. de Guise but I am unclear on an issue. Is
> >this man a descendant of de Guise that has simply adopted the name and
> >his title, or is it something much less?
>
> >William de Laune
> >www.royaltyintl.comOh gee shucks I don't know, Mr. "wishes to remain anonymous for political and
> social reasons".
> François Velde
So - Francois,
You seem to know this man William de Laune. Please tell us all who Mr.
de Luane is and why he would seek anonymity?
royal...@gmail.com
I believe Mr. Velde was referring to our FAQs page that states, other
than myself, our board members prefer to remain anonymous. I do not
know Mr. Velde.
However, this point of contention that seems to be the prevailing issue
is rather insignificant. I suspect that the transparency that has been
requested is merely a ruse to afford some of the folks here the
opportunity to lunch unwarranted personal attacks at otherwise
non-notable, yet significant, individuals or to accuse the RPSI of
lying about the more notable members. The overall attitude regarding
RPSI and myself here over the last couple of days provides evidence of
this. Remember, all we claim to do is verify a persons pedigree prior
to membership being granted; this we have complete authority to do.
My first request for restraint was answered with a figurative "show us
blood" response. In any event, we do not play games like that.
William de Laune
www.royaltyintl.com
François R. Velde
>I suspect that the transparency that has been
>requested is merely a ruse to afford some of the folks here the
>opportunity to lunch unwarranted personal attacks at otherwise
>non-notable, yet significant, individuals or to accuse the RPSI of
>lying about the more notable members.
Ah yes, asking you who you are is a ruse.
If someone calls you on the phone, never ask who they are. That would be a
"lunching attacks".
You came in here and asked for scrutiny. Remember?
Joseph McMillan
François R. Velde wrote:
>
> If someone calls you on the phone, never ask who they are. That would be a
> "lunching attacks".
>
do with forcing someone to eat a heavy meal at midday; I never would
have guessed that it referred to the telephone!
Joseph McMillan
Greg
> > > >www.royaltyintl.comOhgee shucks I don't know, Mr. "wishes to remain anonymous for political and
> > > social reasons".
> > > François Velde
>
> > So - Francois,
>
> > You seem to know this man William de Laune. Please tell us all who Mr.
> > de Luane is and why he would seek anonymity?- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Hello William,
Thank you for replying. I think you should know that individuals within
this thread ( you have read their posts, and probably others) believe
that your website is a front for a scam.
I'm sorry to have to put it so bluntly, but that's indeed what is
going on.
As you may have noticed these individuals are intentionally acrid in
their "investigations" of what other people do... They believe
themselves to be the "title cops", and have deluded themselves into
thinking that they somehow represent real journalism. Their methods
are however very sad we all agree, and they make more of a mess than
they realize.
None of us want to see other people taken advantage of. In our field
of interest, there are many good-natured students of genealogy and
heraldry who are easily led away from their money and that is a concern
for us all... We should also remember that some degree of
professionalism goes a long way toward supporting the foundation of
consumer effort. I would suggest to you fake titles:
www.faketitles.com the earl Bradford runs a good site. Richard and I
have corresponded in the past on this issue and he is a good
association for anybody who operates online. You might email him and
get his thoughts on the matter with regard to your site and the do's
and don'ts.
Regards
Greg
royal...@gmail.com
Thanks for the feedback. I will certainly look in to the Earl
Bradford's site.
William de Laune
www.royaltyintl.com
George Lucki
"François R. Velde" <ve...@heraldicanospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:u66al2d94cohvu431...@4ax.com...
> In medio rec.heraldry aperuit royal...@gmail.com os suum:
>>I suspect that the transparency that has been
>>requested is merely a ruse to afford some of the folks here the
>>opportunity to lunch unwarranted personal attacks at otherwise
>>non-notable, yet significant, individuals or to accuse the RPSI of
>>lying about the more notable members.
I guess that is the non-notable yet significant who always feel the most
vunerable.
But maybe you could tell us something about the "Grand Order of the
Preservable Rose" through which the RPSI operates?
I presume it is reserved for the more notable yet still anonymous members.
George Lucki
royal...@gmail.com
> I guess that is the non-notable yet significant who always feel the most
> vunerable.
> But maybe you could tell us something about the "Grand Order of the
> Preservable Rose" through which the RPSI operates?
> I presume it is reserved for the more notable yet still anonymous members.
> George Lucki
Yes, that is correct. Anyone of note is welcome to be listed in public
through RPSI. The Order is reserved for titled persons.
William de Laune
www.royaltyintl.com
George Lucki
news:1163357388....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Thank you. Maybe a silly question as the answer may turn out to be
'anonymous' but under whose authority is this order of yours? Who is the
sovereign, who is the grand-master, etc.?
As well, do you yourself hold an aristocratic title?
George Lucki
Turenne
Also, what criteria do you use when deciding whether someone is 'noble'
or not?
Richard Lichten
George Lucki
news:%4M5h.294584$5R2.20511@pd7urf3no...
non-notable yet significant members of the RPSI have with various silly
'micronation' ventures such as 'Vikesland', 'Molossia', etc.?
George Lucki
StephenP
on their index page;
"Despite rumours to be found on the Internet, neither The Baronage
Press nor anyone working for The Baronage Press sells or has sold any
titles of any kind......"
I don't think anyone has claimed that the BP was the actual vendor,
just that the BP has been very closely involved as an intermediary or
"broker".
Yours aye
Stephen
mj...@btinternet.com
And endorser, of course, despite the highly suspect nature of many of
the titles they tout - e.g., as we now see thanks to Derek's work, the
"manor" of Stanbury, of which Baronage Press's website still says the
following:
"After first dismissing the fraudulently "revived" manors or
invented manors, genuine manors may be considered...in response to
requests for leads to genuine titles, we decided to publish a Property
Portfolio featuring a selection of British manorial titles we believe
to be of interest. We began with the Manor of Stanbury in Yorkshire in
England"
MA-R
ele...@gnucnu.com
> > I don't think anyone has claimed that the BP was the actual vendor,
> > just that the BP has been very closely involved as an intermediary or
> the titles they tout - e.g., as we now see thanks to Derek's work, the
> "manor" of Stanbury, of which Baronage Press's website still says the
> following:
Derek Howard says that the jury might still be out in respect of the
contemporary existence of the Manor of Stanbury. I can't make a
judgement on that, but I can state that the files show that as late as
1805 there were people who believed in its existence. On the 12th
August that year there was a meeting of the Court Baron and a
Perambulation of the Manor boundaries of which we have a copy of the
transcript. It reads as follows --
Perambulation of the Boundaries of Stanbury, 1805
The Court Baron of Benjamin Rawson Esquire and the Court for
perambulating the boundaries of Stanbury, held by adjournment at the
house of Mathew Wilkinson, the Cross Inn, in Stanbury, on Monday the
twelfth day of August in the forty fifth year of the reign of His
Majesty King George the Third and in the year of our Lord One Thousand
Eight Hundred and Five.
Before me
JO. BENTLEY, Steward
Names of the Jurors for the Lord of the Said Manor
John Sturges Esq Sw (ome)
Mr. Greenwood Bentley
Mr. Joseph Hollings
Mr. Thomas Fearnley
Mr. Key
Mr. Mathew Wilkinson
Mr. William Sharp
Mr. Jonas Tasker
Mr. John Priestley
Mr. Jonathan Walton
Mr. James Broadbent
Mr. Robert Ray
"Beginning at a Bridge called Smith Bank Bridge we did find the
boundaries as follows, viz.
"From the said Bridge we proceeded up the North side of the Beck called
the Sun Beck otherwise Chart Beck, to a place called Withens, and from
thence we proceeded southwards, along the said Beck, and from the Head
of the same Beck southwardly, across certain Inclosed Lands of Joseph
Midgley and John Crabtree to certain Stones upon the Moors called the
Nooning Stones, and from thence we proceeded southwardly in a line
across the said Moors to a certain stone called Walshaw Dean Head, and
marked with the letter H, and from the said Stone we proceeded
westwardly in a triangular direction along the north side of an old
Ditch to a certain place called Blackstone Clough Head and from thence
to certain Stones called Awcomb Dean Stones; and from Awcomb Dean
Stones we proceeded to a place called Robins Ditch; and from Robins
Ditch to a place called White Hossocks, and from White Hossocks to Crow
Hill Spring and from Crow Hill Spring we went in a northward direction
to a certain Stone called 'the Lad or Scarr on the Hill', and from
thence we proceeded in a line northward, to a certain Beck on the
southside of the Highway leading from Stanbury aforesaid to Colne,
called the North Beck, and then we proceeded along the southside of the
said Beck, until we came to a certain beck called the South Beck, which
runs up from the said Bridge called Smith Bank Bridge into the said
North Beck, and then we proceeded up the North side of the said Beck
called South Beck, until we came to Smith Bank Bridge aforesaid, the
place at which we began."
We have also a PDF file of notes on Stanbury's history compiled by the
local historian which refer to this Perambulation and also to another
he arranged in 2002 (of which we appear to have no record). I have
uploaded this PDF file to --
www.baronage.co.uk/StanburyNotes.pdf
Although these notes are supported by citations they may not prove
whether the Manor of Stanbury exists today or not, but they do indicate
that at least some people believed it existed in 1805 and that others
may do still today. Derek reports the view of Bradford Archives as --
>> "They cannot trace any Stanbury Manor Court Rolls", which leads
them to "believe that Stanbury as a Manor in the 17th-19th centuries
didn't exist" and that they "cannot find any written trace of it". <<
That seems to be a firm judgement from people who ought to know, but
how is this to be reconciled with the local historian's note of the
1795 sale of the "Manors of Bradford and Stanbury to Benjamin Rawson
Esq. for £2,100" for which he cites the "Bradford Antiquary, vol. 3
(1907)"? (Yes, I know this is not a primary source but, like Derek,
right at this moment I have to work with what is on the shelves and
what is in the files.) There seems to be a conflict here, and if there
is, then who is in error? Did the local historian misread or invent
the Bradford Antiquary? Or did H.F. Killick misread or invent the
"written trace" of this late 18th century sale? Or have the people at
Bradford Archives overlooked something? I don't know the answer. Does
anyone? Ten years elapsed between the Rawson purchase and the
Perambulation. Does that tell us anything?
Eleanor
ml...@le.ac.uk
> Derek Howard says that the jury might still be out in respect of the
> contemporary existence of the Manor of Stanbury. I can't make a
> judgement on that, but I can state that the files show that as late as
> 1805 there were people who believed in its existence. On the 12th
> August that year there was a meeting of the Court Baron and a
> Perambulation of the Manor boundaries of which we have a copy of the
> transcript. It reads as follows --
>
> Perambulation of the Boundaries of Stanbury, 1805
>
> The Court Baron of Benjamin Rawson Esquire and the Court for
> perambulating the boundaries of Stanbury, held by adjournment at the
> house of Mathew Wilkinson, the Cross Inn, in Stanbury, on Monday the
> twelfth day of August in the forty fifth year of the reign of His
> Majesty King George the Third and in the year of our Lord One Thousand
> Eight Hundred and Five.
White's 1847 Directory of Leeds, Bradford, etc says, in the entry on
Haworth at p. 329:
'The Manors and their owners are - Haworth, WB Ferrand esq; Oxenhope,
Joseph Greenwood esq; and Stanbury, the Misses Rawson.'
Matt Tompkins
mj...@btinternet.com
ele...@gnucnu.com schrieb:
> On Nov 17, 11:07 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
> > > I don't think anyone has claimed that the BP was the actual vendor,
> > > just that the BP has been very closely involved as an intermediary or
> > > "broker".And endorser, of course, despite the highly suspect nature of many of
> > the titles they tout - e.g., as we now see thanks to Derek's work, the
> > "manor" of Stanbury, of which Baronage Press's website still says the
> > following:
>
> Derek Howard says that the jury might still be out in respect of the
> contemporary existence of the Manor of Stanbury. I can't make a
> judgement on that, but I can state that the files show that as late as
> 1805 there were people who believed in its existence. On the 12th
> August that year there was a meeting of the Court Baron and a
> Perambulation of the Manor boundaries of which we have a copy of the
> transcript.
Eleanor
Thank you - sincerely - for posting these. It would be interesting to
resolve this. I note that, for what it is worth, the transcript you
provided does not explicitly refer to the "manor of Stanbury" or to the
"Court Baron of Stanbury". I have never before heard of perambulations
for a manor, only for parishes. Are other instances of manorial
perambulations known?
I do wonder whether, where doubt exists as to the bona fides of
something like a manor, its existance should be touted in a manner that
does not refer to these doubts, but that's clearly your call.
Michael
ele...@gnucnu.com
> I have never before heard of perambulations
> for a manor, only for parishes.
Michael,
I am not familiar myself with perambulations of parishes although I do
remember "beating the bounds" on horseback once with a New Forest vicar
and his enthusiastic congregation, which was more like a cavalry charge
than a perambulation, although I assume this is what you mean. Perhaps
there are different traditions in different parts of the country.
Eleanor
mj...@btinternet.com
ele...@gnucnu.com schrieb:
Indeed: "beating the bounds" - i.e. parish boundaries - was usually
effected by walking around them - i.e. a perambulation - so the two
things are essentially synonymous, as I understand it. The
perambulation aspect is what remains, as beating boys with sticks has
largely passed out of fashion, although in some places it seems the
bounds themselves (eg fences, gates, trees, walls) are still
symbolically beaten.
This website sums it up fairly well:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-587X(19310930)42%3A3%3C317%3ABTB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U
I would be interested to hear of any instances where the boundaries
were manorial, rather than parochial.
MA-R
ele...@gnucnu.com
>> White's 1847 Directory of Leeds, Bradford, etc says, in the entry on Haworth at p. 329:
'The Manors and their owners are - Haworth, WB Ferrand esq; Oxenhope,
Joseph Greenwood esq; and Stanbury, the Misses Rawson.' <<
Thank you. That is another indication that there were people in the
19th century who believed (even if 21st century scholarship should
eventually prove them to be wrong) that the Manor of Stanbury continued
to exist. The fact that Lord Mountgarrett sold the manor to Tom Lee,
who was advised by an English London-based lawyer, obviously indicates
that some people in the 20th century believed so too.
I see that the description of Stanbury on the Baronage pages was
published on 26 February 2003 (and has been in the archives section
since 2004). There is nothing in the files to suggest the editor knew
of any doubts existing then, and the files show also that the
correspondence mentioned by Derek Howard was in January 2005. In view
of that two year gap I find this objectionable:
On Nov 18, Michael Andrews-Reading wrote:
>> I do wonder whether, where doubt exists as to the bona fides of
something like a manor, its existance should be touted in a manner that
does not refer to these doubts, but that's clearly your call. <<
There are five points to make here. First, there appear to have been
no doubts when the Stanbury description was published, nor, according
to the files, were there any for the next two years. Second, the
Baronage PDF file on statutory declarations carries all the caveats
necessary. Third, Stanbury is not for sale (so far as I know, anyway).
Fourth, I am only a writer -- I don't have "a call" in editorial
matters. Fifth, the verb "to tout" is offensive, and anyone who wishes
to refer to a dictionary will find the use here of "touted" wholly
inappropriate.
Eleanor
mj...@btinternet.com
ele...@gnucnu.com schrieb:
> On Nov 18, 6.30pm, Matt Tompkins wrote:
>
> >> White's 1847 Directory of Leeds, Bradford, etc says, in the entry on Haworth at p. 329:
>
> 'The Manors and their owners are - Haworth, WB Ferrand esq; Oxenhope,
> Joseph Greenwood esq; and Stanbury, the Misses Rawson.' <<
>
> Thank you. That is another indication that there were people in the
> 19th century who believed (even if 21st century scholarship should
> eventually prove them to be wrong) that the Manor of Stanbury continued
> to exist. The fact that Lord Mountgarrett sold the manor to Tom Lee,
> who was advised by an English London-based lawyer, obviously indicates
> that some people in the 20th century believed so too.
>
> I see that the description of Stanbury on the Baronage pages was
> published on 26 February 2003 (and has been in the archives section
> since 2004). There is nothing in the files to suggest the editor knew
> of any doubts existing then, and the files show also that the
> correspondence mentioned by Derek Howard was in January 2005. In view
> of that two year gap I find this objectionable:
>
> On Nov 18, Michael Andrews-Reading wrote:
>
> >> I do wonder whether, where doubt exists as to the bona fides of
> something like a manor, its existance should be touted in a manner that
> does not refer to these doubts, but that's clearly your call. <<
Ah, Eleanor, that's more like we expect from you. I didn't think you'd
be able to sustain a civilised conversation for terribly long.
It seems you need to purchase a slightly better dictionary than the one
you are using at present. Here's a simple definition of "tout" for
you, given that you appear determined to misrepresent my views by
putting meanings into my mouth:
"to tout: to publicize"
Baronage Press has made public the claim that Stanbury is a manor;
indeed it holds Stanbury out as a prime example of a bona fide manorial
title - it touts the manor's existance. The only reason you find my
statement objectionable is because you wish to do so. No surprises
there then.
Like it or not, there are clearly doubts about the manor's existance
now. Baronage Press's endorsement of it may well have been entirely
innocent - no-one to my knowledge is suggesting otherwise - but it's
still out there and you, one of the "editorial team (so described on
Baronage Press's own website), certainly know about those doubts and at
very least have been researching the matter, possibly off your own bat,
and possibly because you are posting on someone else's behalf again
[you seem to know alot about Tom Lee's lawyers, for example]. Perhaps
you and your colleagues would be advised to remove or amend the pages
that continue to vouch for the manor's bona fides, rather than attempt
to sweep them under the carpet them as "archived". Judgments are
formed not just on the making of mistakes, but also on how mistakes are
dealt with. Ignoring or repeating one's mistakes are not generally
considered positive attributes.
Furthermore, if your colleagues at Baronage Press hadn't decided to
involved themselves in the endorsement and promotion of other blatant
fakes, perhaps you'd have a bit more credibility when it comes to
moaning about the current situation. In case you'd forgotten, you
chaps are still standing by your approval of French "feudal title"
sales, despite all the evidence being against it. Once you've removed
or amended the paper seeking to support this untenable stance (e.g.
ceased trying to rely on Dr Stavaux's repudiated former non-expert
views, or from attempting to pass them off as somehow representing the
position of "the European Union", or by addressing some of Francois
Velde's analysis), perhaps you will be in a better position to lecture
the rest of us.
As it happens, I find it objectionable that the "good guys" who beat
the drum about how dedicated they are to exposing frauds and ensuring
consumers deal only with the real stuff are meanwhile continually
giving such succour to their home team of false princes and purveyors
of non-existant titles. Perhaps that just indicates that we have
different moral codes. Nevertheless, as I have stated many times over
the past 14 months, I would be delighted to be proved wrong.
PS Do you and your chums still support Andrew Hunter's claims to be
Head of the Princely House of Guise-Lorraine? A simple yes or no will
suffice, thank you.
Kind regards,
Michael
www.areyoubeingconned.com
mj...@btinternet.com
mj...@btinternet.com schrieb:
> mj...@btinternet.com schrieb:
>
> >
> > "The Council" apparently consists of "Prince Andre de Guise" [er,
> > claims title by female descent], "Prince Lucien de Guise" [um, ditto],
> > "Prince Damien de Guise" [hm, ditto] and N. Vandervall Coots, "Baron of
> > Esnes" ['acquired' title by feudal transfer].
In fairness, I must point out that the version of the Order of the
White Greyhound's webpage entitled 'Structure' no longer refers to
Lucien de Guise as "Prince Lucien de Guise", and makes no reference
whatsoever to Damien de Guise [formerly Treasurer].
Its President still calls himself "Prince Andre de Guise", however, and
Eleanor "Alex" Murray, Baronage Press's chief apologist, remains a
Counsellor.
Michael Andrews-Reading
www.areyoubeingconned.com
ele...@gnucnu.com
<<Ah, Eleanor, that's more like we expect from you. I didn't think
you'd
> be able to sustain a civilised conversation for terribly long.
>
> It seems you need to purchase a slightly better dictionary than the one
> you are using at present. Here's a simple definition of "tout" for
> you, given that you appear determined to misrepresent my views by
> putting meanings into my mouth:
>
> "to tout: to publicize"
>
> Baronage Press has made public the claim that Stanbury is a manor;
> indeed it holds Stanbury out as a prime example of a bona fide manorial
> title - it touts the manor's existance. The only reason you find my
> statement objectionable is because you wish to do so.
Oh dear, Michael, I do believe you are being disingenuous again, as you
were when you accused me of calling people racist, which, as you very
well know, I did not.
> Like it or not, there are clearly doubts about the manor's existance
> now.
Perhaps you should check your own dictionary before we discuss
anything's "existance". I assumed it was a typo at first, which I was
too polite to mention, but you keep repeating it, so I thought I'd do
you a favour by bringing it to your attention so you can correct it
yourself.
With best wishes
Eleanor
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> White's 1847 Directory of Leeds, Bradford, etc says, in the entry on
> Haworth at p. 329:
>
> 'The Manors and their owners are - Haworth, WB Ferrand esq;
What a curiosity to find this gent here. He was, according to a book
published about him four years ago, 'The Working Man's Friend' and was
party to introducing the Truck Act to stop employers paying their
workers in tokens redeemable only at the company shop and campaigned to
reduce the basic working day to ten hours and to stop under eight year
olds from being employed. He was also my 3G uncle.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
ele...@gnucnu.com
On Nov 18, 11:51 pm, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
> m...@btinternet.com schrieb:
>
> > m...@btinternet.com schrieb:
>
> > > "The Council" apparently consists of "Prince Andre de Guise" [er,
> > > claims title by female descent], "Prince Lucien de Guise" [um, ditto],
> > > "Prince Damien de Guise" [hm, ditto] and N. Vandervall Coots, "Baron of
> > > Esnes" ['acquired' title by feudal transfer].In fairness, I must point out that the version of the Order of the
> White Greyhound's webpage entitled 'Structure' no longer refers to
> Lucien de Guise as "Prince Lucien de Guise", and makes no reference
> whatsoever to Damien de Guise [formerly Treasurer].
>
> Its President still calls himself "Prince Andre de Guise", however, and
> Eleanor "Alex" Murray, Baronage Press's chief apologist, remains a
> Counsellor.
I am sorry to have to disappoint you again, Michael, but I am not and
never have been involved with Andre de Guise in any way apart from
meeting him once to discuss developing viable products that could be
made in Moldova to help support kids in orphanages there, which
interested me, but which did not in fact lead to anything. I am not and
never have been a "Counsellor", whatever that is, and was unaware that
an Alexandra Murray was listed on the White Greyhound webpages. It is
not a name I have ever used myself, professionally or privately and I
have certainly never given anyone my permission to refer to me as such
on any website or indeed anywhere else. As you will see, if you Google
it, there are plenty of people called Alexandra Murray but
I am not one of them.
With best wishes,
Eleanor
mj...@btinternet.com
ele...@gnucnu.com schrieb:
> On Nov 18, 11:31 pm, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> <<Ah, Eleanor, that's more like we expect from you. I didn't think
> you'd
> > be able to sustain a civilised conversation for terribly long.
> >
> > It seems you need to purchase a slightly better dictionary than the one
> > you are using at present. Here's a simple definition of "tout" for
> > you, given that you appear determined to misrepresent my views by
> > putting meanings into my mouth:
> >
> > "to tout: to publicize"
> >
> > Baronage Press has made public the claim that Stanbury is a manor;
> > indeed it holds Stanbury out as a prime example of a bona fide manorial
> > title - it touts the manor's existance. The only reason you find my
> > statement objectionable is because you wish to do so.
>
(snip of usual irrelevent distractions)
> With best wishes
>
> Eleanor
So, no retractions then, despite having been proven wrong - entirely
typical - and no answers to the simplest of questions. Could do
better, Eleanor dear.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
ele...@gnucnu.com schrieb:
>
> I am sorry to have to disappoint you again, Michael, but I am not and
> never have been involved with Andre de Guise in any way apart from
> meeting him once to discuss developing viable products that could be
> made in Moldova to help support kids in orphanages there, which
> interested me, but which did not in fact lead to anything. I am not and
> never have been a "Counsellor", whatever that is, and was unaware that
> an Alexandra Murray was listed on the White Greyhound webpages. It is
> not a name I have ever used myself, professionally or privately and I
> have certainly never given anyone my permission to refer to me as such
> on any website or indeed anywhere else. As you will see, if you Google
> it, there are plenty of people called Alexandra Murray but
> I am not one of them.
You were well aware, Miss Eleanor Alexandra Murray (known as Alex),
that you featured on his webpage in respect of your jewellery
expertise, because we had a chat about it here in September. Here's
the thread:
Does this assist your poor memory?
I am happy to accept the rest of your screed - particularly the bit in
which you note you invariably disappoint. It seems you are saying that
your chum de Guise (whom you have supported tenaciously here in the
past: do you need links to your posts as a reminder?) serially
misleads, claiming associations with folk such as Dr Stavaux and
yourself when none exists. He does sound like a fantasist - perhaps
you could explain to us why Baronage Press continues to promote his
business selling French titles and has failed to withdraw their
endorsement of his "princely" status?
Kind regards
Michael Andrews-Reading
www.areyoubeingconned.com
ml...@le.ac.uk
> ele...@gnucnu.com schrieb:
> > 1805 there were people who believed in its existence. On the 12th
> > August that year there was a meeting of the Court Baron and a
> > Perambulation of the Manor boundaries of which we have a copy of the
> > transcript.
> I have never before heard of perambulations
> for a manor, only for parishes. Are other instances of manorial
> perambulations known?
They certainly are, Michael. The Manorial Documents Register's
homepages
(http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/mdr/help/mdr/glossary.htm)
include the following definitions of terms used to describe manorial
documents:
"Boundaries: Descriptions of boundaries and papers, correspondence
and notes relating to manorial boundaries. Used where the record is not
a formal perambulation."
"Perambulation: A document created as a result of the practice of
perambulation, or 'beating' the bounds of a manor."
A google search against 'manor' 'perambulation' and 'bounds'
or 'boundaries' will produce several examples of manorial
perambulations - for example one of the North Yorks Record Office's
documents on the A2A website by is "Old Byland manor perambulation
of boundaries 1846-60 (ZDV)". There are also the texts and partial
images of of couple of examples of manorial bounds reported by manorial
juries in 1656 and 1758 in 'A Cornish Sourcebook - Parish and manor
Bounds' (http://cornovia.org.uk/bounds/index.html).
Nowadays we think of perambulations mostly in the context of beating
parish boundaries at Rogationtide, but that is simply the longest
surviving sub-type of a procedure which was once commonly used to
determine and record boundaries of many sorts, from entire royal
forests down to manorial demesnes and other sub-manorial and
sub-parochial land units. Before maps were commonplace the only
practical way of identifying boundaries was to walk (or ride) round
them with the local people who knew where they were.
In fact I suspect parochial perambulations were relative late-comers
- the precise location of parish boundaries was much more important
in the modern period than in the middle ages, as a result of the Tudors
loading so many functions of local government onto the parish. This
made it important to know exactly where the parish's
responsibilities, and rights, began and ended. Before the Tudors the
parish boundaries were only important in determining who was entitled
to tithes, and the boundaries of the manor and the 'vill' or
township were more important, as they were the basic units of local
government and agriculture. Most parish customs of annual
perambulations probably evolved in the early modern period out of
earlier manorial or township perambulations.
By coincidence just yesterday I was footnoting several 15-17th-century
bounds from the manorial documents of Great Horwood in Bucks, relating
variously to the boundaries of the manor, its demesne, and Whaddon
Chase (a private forest, part of which lay within the manor).
Matt Tompkins
Greg
On Nov 19, 12:33 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
> elea...@gnucnu.com schrieb:
>
>
>
> > I am sorry to have to disappoint you again, Michael, but I am not and
> > never have been involved with Andre de Guise in any way apart from
> > meeting him once to discuss developing viable products that could be
> > made in Moldova to help support kids in orphanages there, which
> > interested me, but which did not in fact lead to anything. I am not and
> > never have been a "Counsellor", whatever that is, and was unaware that
> > an Alexandra Murray was listed on the White Greyhound webpages. It is
> > not a name I have ever used myself, professionally or privately and I
> > have certainly never given anyone my permission to refer to me as such
> > on any website or indeed anywhere else. As you will see, if you Google
> > it, there are plenty of people called Alexandra Murray but
> > I am not one of them.You were well aware, Miss Eleanor Alexandra Murray (known as Alex),
> that you featured on his webpage in respect of your jewellery
> expertise, because we had a chat about it here in September. Here's
> the thread:
>
> http://groups.google.de/group/alt.talk.royalty/browse_thread/thread/b...
>
> Does this assist your poor memory?
>
> I am happy to accept the rest of your screed - particularly the bit in
> which you note you invariably disappoint. It seems you are saying that
> your chum de Guise (whom you have supported tenaciously here in the
> past: do you need links to your posts as a reminder?) serially
> misleads, claiming associations with folk such as Dr Stavaux and
> yourself when none exists. He does sound like a fantasist - perhaps
> you could explain to us why Baronage Press continues to promote his
> business selling French titles and has failed to withdraw their
> endorsement of his "princely" status?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Michael Andrews-Readingwww.areyoubeingconned.com
I have some questions for Michael with regard to Baronage Press and a
misguided and rediculous perception that Michael perpetuates:
Who are the agents of Baronage Press that you believe are legally or
otherwise representing same within these discussions?
What would an "agent" hope to gain?
Why do you cling to the notion that Baronage or an "agent" thereto
is "scripting" as you put it, posts to this forum?
And lastly: can you Michael submit to these discussions anything that
isn't laced with the most acrid and immature sarcasm and thereby keep
these discussions to an exchange of informative ideas and opinions, so
that we can all benefit?
Greg
> > Michael Andrews-Readingwww.areyoubeingconned.comI have some questions for Michael with regard to Baronage Press and a
> misguided and rediculous perception that Michael perpetuates:
>
> Who are the agents of Baronage Press that you believe are legally or
> otherwise representing same within these discussions?
>
> What would an "agent" hope to gain?
>
> Why do you cling to the notion that Baronage or an "agent" thereto
> is "scripting" as you put it, posts to this forum?
>
> And lastly: can you Michael submit to these discussions anything that
> isn't laced with the most acrid and immature sarcasm and thereby keep
> these discussions to an exchange of informative ideas and opinions, so
> that we can all benefit?- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Also: Your choice of the word "tout" is indeed intentional and I too
would like to know why you insist on using the language as some sort of
weapon to further your ridiculous charges of complicity in this 'trumpt
-up' idea that you have been trying without sucess to sell.
mj...@btinternet.com
ml...@le.ac.uk schrieb:
> mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> > ele...@gnucnu.com schrieb:
> > > 1805 there were people who believed in its existence. On the 12th
> > > August that year there was a meeting of the Court Baron and a
> > > Perambulation of the Manor boundaries of which we have a copy of the
> > > transcript.
>
> > I have never before heard of perambulations
> > for a manor, only for parishes. Are other instances of manorial
> > perambulations known?
>
>
> They certainly are, Michael. The Manorial Documents Register's
> homepages
> (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/mdr/help/mdr/glossary.htm)
> include the following definitions of terms used to describe manorial
> documents:
>
> "Boundaries: Descriptions of boundaries and papers, correspondence
> and notes relating to manorial boundaries. Used where the record is not
> a formal perambulation."
>
> "Perambulation: A document created as a result of the practice of
> perambulation, or 'beating' the bounds of a manor."
Many thanks Matt for this confirmation.
Regards
Michael
mj...@btinternet.com
Greg schrieb:
> I have some questions for Michael with regard to Baronage Press and a
> misguided and rediculous perception that Michael perpetuates:
This is your value judgment, and simply because you assert it does not
make it true; not an auspicious start for a post purporting to call for
objectivity.
> Who are the agents of Baronage Press that you believe are legally or
> otherwise representing same within these discussions?
Eleanor Murray is part of the Baronage Press's "editorial team",
according to their website. She posts material (eg the 'Manor of
Stanbury') taken from their files. I doubt she is their legal
representative, but she clearly is their agent. Being an agent in this
sense is not, of course, a pejorative term.
> What would an "agent" hope to gain?
I can only speculate on this, which is probably not terribly useful.
Perhaps they would wish to help their employer? Perhaps they would
wish to continue their employment? If you are interested in knowing
more about someone's motives, you would probably be better served by
asking them directly.
>
> Why do you cling to the notion that Baronage or an "agent" thereto
> is "scripting" as you put it, posts to this forum?
Two reasons. Firstly, because of literary similarities in some text
posted here. Secondly, because you yourself admitted on 9 September
that you had done exactly this:
"You're right. I did not write that line of questions... Fredrick
[Hogarth] sent me an email with those questions on it: he seems
reluctant - I think - to appear here"
> And lastly: can you Michael submit to these discussions anything that
> isn't laced with the most acrid and immature sarcasm and thereby keep
> these discussions to an exchange of informative ideas and opinions, so
> that we can all benefit?
If you look at my posts on other topics or with other interlocutors, I
think you will find they are entirely civil. Given that your first
contribution in discussion with me was "who is this idiot?" and you
have continued in a similar vein since your initial appearance, you are
not really in a position to lecture others. In order to benefit from
an exchange of informative ideas (and facts, more importantly), it is
necessary for all posters to engage. It has been shown beyond any
reasonable doubt that Andrew Hunter's princely titles are fakes, and
yet Baronage Press has not withdrawn their clear support:
"On the balance of the arguments, and assisted by a privileged
understanding of princely families, we recognise Andre, Prince de
Guise, as the holder of a title valid in the 21st century. That... so
far as The Baronage Press is concerned, closes the matter". [Frederick
Hogarth, 26.9.2005]
Furthermore, despite it having been demonstrated by Francois Velde that
according to French law feudal titles cannot be sold, Baronage Press
continues to advance the position that they can, and they have endorsed
and referred the fake prince who purports to sell such titles, as well
as making reference in their paper on the subject to a man who states
he is not an expert on the matter and has repudiated his earlier views
in any case. As an erstwhile admirer of Mr Hogarth and Baronage Press,
I would like to see them acknowledge their error and withdraw their
support for such purported transactions - this would be far more useful
than further unproductive slanging matches and might assist me, for
one, in restoring some respect for Baronage Press's work. In the
meantime, I will continue to make available the material which helps in
showing that their positions on these matters are mistaken. If this
means I will be the subject of further ad hominem attacks and
misrepresentations, then I can live with that.
Michael Andrews-Reading
www.areyoubeingconned.com
mj...@btinternet.com
Greg schrieb:
> Also: Your choice of the word "tout" is indeed intentional and I too
> would like to know why you insist on using the language as some sort of
> weapon to further your ridiculous charges of complicity in this 'trumpt
> -up' idea that you have been trying without sucess to sell.
Another emotionally charged and highly subjective post. If you want
objectivity from others, please strive to show some yourself, Greg.
Your continual habit of posting biased and abusive material in support
of one side of this so-called debate, and your regular ad hominem
attacks do more to produce the notions of complicity than anyone else
could, even if they tried.
I am sorry, but you do not know better than I do what I mean when I say
something. My use of the word "tout" was indeed intentional, but not
with the intent that you seek to impute to me. I used it in the sense
of "to promote; to publicize", as in "to tout the benefits of Vitamin
A" or "to tout the philosophy of Swedenborg". If I wanted to refer to
transactions relating to a questionable title, as you insist I was
doing, do you really think I would hold back from doing so? I
certainly haven't in any other related matter.
Miscontruing my meaning - especially when I have already responded to
this charge - does not assist in furthering your alleged aim of
"[keeping] these discussions to an exchange of informative ideas and
opinions, so that we can all benefit".
Michael Andrews-Reading
www.areyoubeingconned.com
ele...@gnucnu.com
>Could do better, Eleanor dear.
Michael, old fruit, (which I use in it's affectionate old colloquial
upper class English sense) in an earlier post yesterday you wrote:
>> Perhaps you and your colleagues would be advised to remove or amend the pages that continue to vouch for the manor's bona fides, rather than attempt to sweep them under the carpet them (sic) as "archived".
<<
I assume you are still being deliberately obtuse. The parental page of
the Stanbury description clearly states --
>> The following properties have been removed from our Property
Portfolio pages either because they have been sold, or withdrawn from
sale, or have been there long enough for all our existing readers to
have read about them. We have decided to keep them online in case
future readers find them mentioned in search engines and wonder what
was written about them. <<
It seems you believe that archived material should be amended. That
rather defeats the purpose of archiving, doesn't it? However, I
telephoned the editor to brief him on your recent posts and to my
surprise he said that if you wanted your doubts on record I should put
them on record, but not by amending the existing material. The doubts
would have to be added as additional material. So I have done this. I
don't know what postnominals you use, but if you will give them to me I
shall amend the page appropriately. The page is at --
http://www.baronage.co.uk/2003a/stanbury.html
With best wishes,
Eleanor
ele...@gnucnu.com
On Nov 19, 10:03 pm, elea...@gnucnu.com wrote:
>
> Michael, old fruit, (which I use in it's affectionate old colloquial
> upper class English sense) in an earlier post yesterday you wrote:
Oh dear, mea culpa, I have a committed a dreadful typo and put an
apostrophe in the wrong place! I should have said "its affectionate old
colloquial upper class English sense".
My sincere apologies to anyone who notices.
Eleanor
mj...@btinternet.com
elea...@gnucnu.com schrieb:
Dear Alex
Your page did make me laugh. It seems rather childish, but I certainly
have no objection to it. For the sake of accuracy, you might like to
note that I did not "insist those doubts be recorded". I said "perhaps
you would be advised to remove or amend the pages" and I earlier noted
that it was "your call" - I did not mean this saccastically; I was
acknowledging that it was your right to have whatever material you
thought appropriate on your website. I don't normally use
post-nominals, as it would be pretentious to do so. Also, you might
also note that the proper name of the institution is "The University of
Sydney", rather than "Sydney University". I should add for the record
that Derek Howard should be given the credit for showing the doubtful
nature of this purported manor.
This silliness aside, how do you and Mr Hogarth feel about addressing
the real issues at hand: your on-the-record support for Andrew Hunter's
false genealogy and title claims, and the position Baronage Press has
taken vis-a-vis the sale of French titles? It seems to me this would
be far more productive than the present level of debate. Do you accept
that Andrew Hunter's claims are baseless? If not, how do you seek to
rebut the evidence that has been presented? Will you amend your
reliance on Dr Stavaux's repudiated views on French title sales? How
do you seek to engage with an rebut the facts of French law that
Francois Velde has published in opposition to Baronage Press's largely
unreferenced opinions on the matter? Adult responses would be welcome.
Regards
Michael Andrews-Reading
www.areyoubeingconned.com
mj...@btinternet.com
Franz
I have referred to a dictionary, and cannot find anything apart from
publicizing something in a positive way. I thought my knowledge of
English was fairly comprehensive, but am I missing something??
ele...@gnucnu.com
On Nov 20, 1:39 am, "Franz" <joseffra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Eleanor I have referred to a dictionary, and cannot find anything apart from
> publicizing something in a positive way. I thought my knowledge of
> English was fairly comprehensive, but am I missing something??
Dear Franz,
The verb "to tout" always carries low-life connotations, in Britain at
least, where it is mainly used to describe the selling of tickets for
popular events, like football matches, at a price higher than the
official one; to spy on racehorses in training to gain information for
betting; and to give tips or solicit bets on racehorses.
The OED also gives the following:
To look out busily for customers; to solicit custom, employment, etc.
importunately; also, U.S., Austral., etc., to canvass for votes; To
importune (a person) in a touting manner; to solicit custom for (a
thing), to try to sell; also (U.S.) in extended sense, to recommend.
1731-54 [see TOUTING, TOUTER 1]. 1837 DICKENS Pickw. x, Doctors'
Commons... Two porters..as touts for licences... Two coves in vhite
aprons touches their hats ven you walk in'Licence, sir, licence?'
1847 ALB. SMITH Chr. Tadpole xix, He used to go backwards and
forwards..to tout for customers. 1857 KINGSLEY Two Y. Ago x, I am to
tout for introductions for you? 1869 ROGERS Hist. Gleanings (1870) II.
200 Before Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act, a particular class of
clergymen, not..in very good repute, touted for marriage-fees. 1881
Nation (N.Y.) XXXII. 397 It has never occurred to him that people would
be shocked by seeing him 'tout' at Albany. 1891 Melbourne Argus 28
Sept., He should have gone round cap in hand and touted for votes. 1898
J. HOLLINGSHEAD Gaiety Chron. ii. 119 The same way as postmen tout for
Christmas boxes.
1920 S. LEWIS Main Street xvi. 199 Why, you're always touting these
Greek dancers. 1928 Daily Tel. 5 May 9/6 It strikes one as..unfair for
bankers to tout their clients for..investment business. 1930 R. H.
MOTTRAM Europa's Beast vii. 164 He was involved in the ghastly job of
touting motor cars. 1948 M. LASKI Tory Heaven i. 14 Touting
vacuum-cleaners at back doors.
With best wishes,
Eleanor
Greg
> > On Nov 18, 11:31 pm, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
I just want to clear up a couple of things for the record:
The post that I made on Sept 9, was something that I did entirely on my
own. I was sent an email with some rather pointed questions, and
rather lasily, instead of rewriting said questions (which would
certainly have been using the words of others) I just simply copied and
pasted them to the tail end of my own comments. It really hadn't
occured to me (and I mean that) that it would be taken the way it was.
The way you - Michael are so quick to jump off with speculation does
your alleged sencerity with these issues no good at all, and I noticed
that certian others follow right behind you. Quite frankly it does
nothing to further the truth that we're all trying to get at. I think
that if you will move away from exagerations / emtional speculations
that clog up the flow of fact then we'll be off on a roll.
I also think that rather than suggesting that I answer my own
questions with regard to motives at Baronge; motives that are not true:
nobody is sending me material to post. You might perhaps send some
letters to Baronage yourself. If they are well written and sincerely
put I can't see any reason that you wouldn't recieve a satisfactory
answer. If a mistake of some kind was made, then I'm also quite sure
that it will just as easily be put right: don't forget that the Office
of the Chief Herald of Ireland made their own mistake, and I don't see
the posse burning them in effigy.
Lastly. It is at the very least, an exageration to say that Baronage,
or any agent therein is acting as some sort of clearing house for fake
- anything. I have seen nothing to back up your claims in that regard,
so I believe that if you will change your tune a bit, maybe the story
will have a better chance. But the way you go at it is unprofessional,
and that way, nothing is going to change.
Regards
Greg
ghp9...@yahoo.com
ele...@gnucnu.com wrote:
> The verb "to tout" always carries low-life connotations, in Britain at
> least, where it is mainly used to describe the selling of tickets for
> popular events, like football matches, at a price higher than the
> official one; to spy on racehorses in training to gain information for
> betting; and to give tips or solicit bets on racehorses.
Very interesting. Definition #4 of "tout" is the only one with which I
am familiar:
4 : to make much of : PROMOTE, TALK UP <touted as the summer's
blockbuster movie> <the college's much touted women's studies program>
intransitive verb
I have a post-graduate degree, work in a highly literate federal
Administration, and otherwise thought I was fairly literate and savy
... I must admit some chagrin in that I was, until this time, entirely
unaware of definitions 1-3:
1 : to spy on : WATCH
2 (a) British : to spy out information about (as a racing stable or
horse) (b) : to give a tip or solicit bets on (a racehorse)
3 : to solicit, peddle, or persuade importunately <not meant to tout
you off the movie -- Russell Baker>
By the way, the chiefly British use meaning to sell tickets at an
unsavory and substantial mark-up is called "scalping" in the US. E.g.,
"They were scalping 'Rolling Stones' tickets last night at $600 each."
I shall in future be careful in what I tout. :^D
--Guy Power
mj...@btinternet.com
Greg schrieb:
> > > On Nov 18, 11:31 pm, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
> >
>
> I just want to clear up a couple of things for the record:
>
> The post that I made on Sept 9, was something that I did entirely on my
> own. I was sent an email with some rather pointed questions, and
> rather lasily, instead of rewriting said questions (which would
> certainly have been using the words of others) I just simply copied and
> pasted them to the tail end of my own comments. It really hadn't
> occured to me (and I mean that) that it would be taken the way it was.
> The way you - Michael are so quick to jump off with speculation does
> your alleged sencerity with these issues no good at all, and I noticed
> that certian others follow right behind you. Quite frankly it does
> nothing to further the truth that we're all trying to get at. I think
> that if you will move away from exagerations / emtional speculations
> that clog up the flow of fact then we'll be off on a roll.
Then how about you address some of the issues, rather than continuing
to focus on the personalities and "he said, she said". You have
admitted that the reason you came here was to pursue your personal
vendetta against Martin Goldstraw from the HSS, and you have seen your
role here as "slapping" people and using different "personae" to
provoke and agitate. It is difficult to identify even one contribution
of yours that has advanced our state of knowledge in relation to the
subject at hand, rather than acting as a distraction. If you have some
facts to add, I am sure we would be interested to know of them; you
refer to your "research" but we haven't seen any to date.
>
> I also think that rather than suggesting that I answer my own
> questions with regard to motives at Baronge; motives that are not true:
> nobody is sending me material to post. You might perhaps send some
> letters to Baronage yourself. If they are well written and sincerely
> put I can't see any reason that you wouldn't recieve a satisfactory
> answer. If a mistake of some kind was made, then I'm also quite sure
> that it will just as easily be put right:
When you say "if a mistake of some kind was made", are you saying that
you don't concede that Andrew Hunter is a fake prince and that French
titles can't be sold? What is your position on these two issues?
I am not sure why I should write a letter to Baronage Press pointing
out their errors (they have made the same statement to me by email,
interestingly). They are aware of the errors, and they have responded,
after a fashion, to their apperent mistake in respect of the 'manor of
Stanbury' after it was drawn to their attention here. In fact, they
themselves first raised the Prince de Guise claims publicly here, so it
seems like an appropriate place to discuss it.
> don't forget that the Office
> of the Chief Herald of Ireland made their own mistake, and I don't see
> the posse burning them in effigy.
Then perhaps you haven't read some of the posts here on the subject.
Sean Murphy has been shining a spotlight on the Chief Herald's
activities - both the original errors and the failure to acknowledge or
remedy them - for some years, and he has always attracted very
considerable support here.
>
> Lastly. It is at the very least, an exageration to say that Baronage,
> or any agent therein is acting as some sort of clearing house for fake
> - anything. I have seen nothing to back up your claims in that regard,
Perhaps that is because you are misrepresenting the situation: no one
is making such claims. It is easy to ridicule claims that are not
being made. The issues here, which have been repeated a vast number of
times but not dealt with by Baronage Press or you, are these:
(1) Baronage Press has publicly supported Andrew Hunter's claims to be
a Prince and the Head of the House of Guise-Lorraine. Does it still,
and if so, on what basis? How does it rebut the evidence made
available to date?
(2) Baronage Press is on the record as stating that it believes French
titles can be sold. Does it still? If so, how do they refute the
contrary argument advanced by Francois Velde, which (unlike their own)
rests on named legal opinion and relevant cases? Will they remove
their references to Dr Stavaux's former opinions, given that he states
he is no expert on the matter and has repudiated those former views, or
withdraw their paper supporting these purported sales? Do they
continue to endorse people who offer such items for sale or to refer
enquirers to them?
> so I believe that if you will change your tune a bit, maybe the story
> will have a better chance. But the way you go at it is unprofessional,
> and that way, nothing is going to change.
Unfortunately it seems more the case that nothing is going to change as
long as the discussion is kept on the periphery and does not address
the issues. Instead of responding to the above questions, which I have
now re-posted several times over the past couple of days, we have seen
lengthy posts lecturing me in particular about my "unprofessional
behaviour" and lecturing all of us in general about alternative
meanings of a particular word the meaning of which, when I used it, has
been made perfectly clear. These are red herrings. Posters and
readers can see the material available and judge for themselves. It is
instructive that to date, in the 15 months that these matters have been
covered and re-covered, of the considerable number of persons
contributing to this debate or contacting me in relation to the
websites, only three people have not been satisfied with the evidence
or sought to continue arguing: Eleanor and Tommy, employees of Baronage
Press, and you. If you are determined to keep raking over these coals,
is it not about time that you addressed the issues directly?
Michael Andrews-Reading
www.areyoubeingconned.com
mj...@btinternet.com
ele...@gnucnu.com schrieb:
> On Nov 20, 1:39 am, "Franz" <joseffra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Eleanor I have referred to a dictionary, and cannot find anything apart from
> > publicizing something in a positive way. I thought my knowledge of
> > English was fairly comprehensive, but am I missing something??
>
> Dear Franz,
>
> The verb "to tout" always carries low-life connotations,
How tedious. As usual, this is a statement of opinion, not of fact,
and it is wrong. Do a google search on "touting" and you will
immediately see how many references there are to "publicizing" or
"promoting" without any negative connotations, or as Franz did, look at
any English dictionary and don't just selectively focus on those
alternative definitions that support your determination to find offense
where none exists. You are behaving like a willful child, seeking to
divert attention.
Here are the real issues for you to address: does Baronage Press still
support Andrew Hunter's claims, and does Baronage Press still believe
French titles can be sold? If so, why?
MA-R
Turenne
If this 'amendment' is some sort of attempt to decry Mr
Andrews-Reading, the effect on anyone who reads it will be exactly the
opposite. When trying to denigrate someone it's usually best if you
don't post what appears to me to be an excellent C.V.
You use words like 'profuse' as opposed to 'frequent' postings. I
rather doubt that Mr Andrews-Reading would need to post in the quantity
that he does if he were to get satisfactory answers to the questions
that he puts to BP. Questions like: 'Does Baronage support Mr Hunter's
claim to be a Prince of Guise?' and 'Can French titles be sold?' would
be a good start.
Richard Lichten
mj...@btinternet.com
ele...@gnucnu.com wrote:
> On Nov 20, 1:39 am, "Franz" <joseffra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Eleanor I have referred to a dictionary, and cannot find anything apart from
> > publicizing something in a positive way. I thought my knowledge of
> > English was fairly comprehensive, but am I missing something??
>
> Dear Franz,
>
> The verb "to tout" always carries low-life connotations,
Here is an online dictionary's definition of "to tout":
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tout
tout (tout)
v. tout·ed, tout·ing, touts
v.intr.
1. To solicit customers, votes, or patronage, especially in a brazen
way.
2. To obtain and deal in information on racehorses.
v.tr.
1. To solicit or importune: street vendors who were touting
pedestrians.
2. Chiefly British To obtain or sell information on (a racehorse or
stable) for the guidance of bettors.
3. To promote or praise energetically; publicize: "For every study
touting the benefits of hormone therapy, another warns of the risks"
Please note the third meaning ascribed to the transitive use of the
verb.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
ele...@gnucnu.com wrote:
> On Nov 20, 1:39 am, "Franz" <joseffra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Eleanor I have referred to a dictionary, and cannot find anything apart from
> > publicizing something in a positive way. I thought my knowledge of
> > English was fairly comprehensive, but am I missing something??
>
> Dear Franz,
>
> The verb "to tout" always carries low-life connotations,
Here's another online dictionary definition of "to tout" in its
transitive sense:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tout
Main Entry: 1tout
Pronunciation: 'taut, in sense 4 also 'tüt
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English tuten to protrude, peer; probably akin to Old
English tOtian to stick out, Norwegian tyte
transitive verb
1 : to spy on : WATCH
2 a British : to spy out information about (as a racing stable or
horse) b : to give a tip or solicit bets on (a racehorse)
3 : to solicit, peddle, or persuade importunately <not meant to tout
you off the movie -- Russell Baker>
4 : to make much of : PROMOTE, TALK UP <touted as the summer's
blockbuster movie> <the college's much touted women's studies program>
Please note the 4th meaning.
Clearly Baronage Press's archived webpage about the "genuine" manor of
Stanbury sought to promote it, in the sense of bringing it to public
notice and, using their reputation, to represent it as bona fide. I am
happy to state that I believe this was done at a time when they had no
reason to believe otherwise.
As it was (and is) linked to a page concerning "genuine" title sales,
it is not unreasonable to conclude that Baronage Press considered it
not just a bona fide manor, but therefore also a bona fide 'title' for
sale. Equally clearly, with the benefit of hindsight, this may not be
the case. Derek Howard has already demonstrated that the Archives
authority to whom he presented the results of his research on the topic
were "95%" convinced that it was not in fact a manor, the only
remaining doubt being due to Baronage Press's page on the topic. It is
therefore potentially misleading to leave that page there as is,
because it risks polluting the website with an opinion that apparently
is no longer held (just as it is misleading to attribute to others
meanings that they do not themselves intend to convey). I commend
Eleanor, as Baronage Press's agent, for having updated that section of
their website.
Given Eleanor's newly revealed powers in relation to amending Baronage
Press's web-pages (subject to Frederick Hogarth's instructions), can we
look forward to similar amendments to their French titles pages in
order to bring them to a state more closely resembling the facts of the
matter?
Michael Andrews-Reading
www.areyoubeingconned.com
mj...@btinternet.com
ghp9...@yahoo.com wrote:
> ele...@gnucnu.com wrote:
> > The verb "to tout" always carries low-life connotations, in Britain at
> > least, where it is mainly used to describe the selling of tickets for
> > popular events, like football matches, at a price higher than the
> > official one; to spy on racehorses in training to gain information for
> > betting; and to give tips or solicit bets on racehorses.
> ==========
>
> Very interesting. Definition #4 of "tout" is the only one with which I
> am familiar:
>
> 4 : to make much of : PROMOTE, TALK UP <touted as the summer's
> blockbuster movie> <the college's much touted women's studies program>
> intransitive verb
Guy - apologies for having re-posted the definition you had already
posted.
MA-R
ele...@gnucnu.com
>You are behaving like a willful child, seeking to divert attention.
>
>Here are the real issues for you to address: does Baronage Press still
support Andrew Hunter's claims, and does Baronage Press still believe
French titles can be sold? If so, why?
Dear Michael
I have been asked to suspend my activity here as a representative of
Baronage, and if I write again in that capacity I shall use my Baronage
address, not this one. So this letter is from me and expresses my own
views. It is not from Baronage.
Some time ago when I asked the editor how I should respond to a point
raised here he replied with two quotations in a note with no salutation
and no signature. He wasn't communicating very much with anyone at the
time, but I interpreted the brevity as subtext and read the quotations
carefully. The first was from the interview with Wim Dennenberg --
>> Question: So you'll write another?
Answer: A sequel to this perhaps, and then we'll see. <<
The second was from you, Michael --
>> Despite promising us a sequel to this 2002 work of breathless
prose, it seems the e-novels from Baronage have e-dried up since then.
Writer's block, old boy? <<
Apart from describing as "breathless prose" a book you had not read,
you turned a "perhaps" into a promise. That twist, Michael, together
with the sneer, is absolutely typical of the style you use here on
rec.heraldry. I bet you wouldn't dare try to get away with it in your
work as a forensic accountant. Now let's look at your question --
>> Will you amend your reliance on Dr Stavaux's repudiated views on
French title sales? <<
You've asked this question several times recently and I've ignored it
because of the twists. At least one version described Dr Stavaux as
the Baronage expert, but nowhere on the Baronage pages or in the PDF
files does the name of Dr Stavaux appear. Nor has anyone been claimed
by Baronage to be a Baronage expert. Only you have done this, Michael.
At least one other version of your question uses its tenses
deliberately to imply the continuation of Baronage reliance on Dr
Stavaux, and this version here too implies continuation. Moreover, the
various versions in their different ways imply that Baronage has
ignored the repudiation. Well, that was all you, Michael. What
Baronage wrote about the views it had sought is on the front page of
the PDF file. This is the relevant part --
>> ....... after asking whether the European Union had any views, we
were led to a paper written by the head of a department in the European
Commission who held a doctorate in law and believed French feudal
titles to have retained their validity. As a consequence of this
subject now being discussed increasingly on the Internet we asked the
author for permission to publish his paper online and were informed
that as he had not written it with open publication in mind, and as he
had recently revised some of his conclusions, he could not allow us to
publish it in its original form. As the original paper had been very
persuasive in its influence ....... <<
That discussion with the unnamed author was by telephone and its
essence was subsequently confirmed by an exchange of e-mails. It is
quite clear, isn't it? This front page states that the views
originally held by a legally qualified man with a senior post in the EC
had been persuasive and had now been changed -- and that is so
different from the impression you try to give, Michael. That the views
had been revised (the term used in the conversation) is explicitly
acknowledged here. This ability of yours to ignore the actual words and
then to set up arguments based on what you would have preferred to have
been said wastes a lot of time. And as for the Baronage views on the
sale of French feudal titles -- if you don't have the time to read
them, just take the time to read the last page of the PDF file.
There is another word you like to twist -- "endorse". You are an
accountant and a lawyer and you know full well what that word means,
and you know full well that the de Guise history uploaded as part of
the Chinese operation was not endorsed by anyone at Baronage. It did
not have a link from any Baronage page and it did not carry the name of
Baronage on it. In common with all the peerage directories, Baronage
accepts the ancestry submitted by families and accepts them as correct
until there is evidence of error, but the de Guise history did not even
reach this stage. It was placed on the Baronage server for a purpose
(and it was not alone there) but it was not a Baronage publication and
there was no endorsement. The rank of André de Guise is another
matter. You have recently quoted from the post that said --
>> ....... we recognise Andre, Prince de Guise, as the holder of a title valid in the 21st century. <<
The 21st century! What about the 20th century, Michael? You're a
lawyer. That sent you scampering back to check on the earlier
paragraph where, after discussing a French duke whose title is accepted
everywhere despite its inheritance having been outside the line of
succession, the text continued --
>> Perhaps the answer is that he is de facto a duke but not de jure.
Perhaps that is the situation with the Princes de Guise, but at this
late stage it is difficult to establish with certainty. <<
-- and you call that an endorsement? If you are sitting at your desk
at Price Waterhouse Coopers and you are looking at the back of a cheque
on which someone has written "signature looks good but its legality is
difficult to establish with certainty" you wouldn't call that an
endorsement even though it is unquestionably written on the back. You
wouldn't, would you? Would you?
That intrusive and thus seemingly irrelevant phrase was the key to the
subtext for intelligent readers, and you are intelligent, Michael, and
you did not miss it. But it was inconvenient, wasn't it? So you
ignored it. The general theory, not necessarily believed by you but
you found it fun to play with, is that Baronage started its operation
twelve years ago with the intention of wiping out the traders in bogus
titles so that it could monopolise the market with the help of a bogus
prince, and that recently it invented the concept of French feudal
titles and has been flogging them off all over the place for huge sums
of money. Well, not exactly all over the place, and not exactly
selling them but certainly advertising them, well perhaps not actually
advertising them but definitely saying they could be sold. And the
reality, Michael? Baronage has never sold a title, has advertised one
unsellable title as bait for an operator who has since died, has
introduced one buyer to a source for a feudal title required for a
purpose which captured the editor's sympathy, and has insisted, at a
time when it was certainly true, that lands which had been titled and
are held by some to retain those titles were being sold in France in
transactions passing through French notaries to people who wanted to
have a title and were advised by French lawyers. That was common
knowledge and the existence of those sales needs no citations. The
last paragraph of the PDF file, referring to the original summary
states --
>> In the composition five years ago of the summary listed in the
opposite column the views of both sides of the validity argument were
taken into account and the balance was tipped by the fact that lands
held to be anciently titled were going to buyers advised by French
lawyers, and those transactions were owed to the buyers' wish to
possess a French title. As only one such purchase is known to have
occurred during the last twelve months, this may indicate that French
lawyers are now taking a different view of the validity. The advice of
the Baronage editors remains as it was: buyers must retain an
independent French lawyer -as emphasised throughout the Baronage
website. <<
So what now, Michael? Are you going to accuse me of being childish
because I have the audacity to disagree with you? Are you going to
accuse me of dodging the issues? Are you going to accuse me of playing
with words? Or are you going to accept that the obsession of certain
members of this forum in pulling Baronage down has led a few along some
very twisted paths to some very bizarre conclusions?
Those are my views, Michael.
Eleanor
Greg
On Nov 19, 11:39 pm, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
> Greg schrieb:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > On Nov 18, 11:31 pm, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
I will post one last time with regard to what has been labeled
'personalities', and then - perhaps - we can get on with it...
Michael:
>>You have
admitted that the reason you came here was to pursue your personal
vendetta against Martin Goldstraw from the HSS, and you have seen your
role here as "slapping" people and using different "personae" to
provoke and agitate. >>
Not entirely true: Again Michael, your using inappropriate words: I
have no 'vendetta". Goldstraw and Plowman were polluting the HSS
forum: a paid for medium, with the same type of abusive sandbagging
that I have seen in rec.heraldry, and now I know where all that stuff
is coming from... I came over here to confront them both, I have done
so and I'm quite happy with the result. I have for some time desired
to find out what the hub-bub (all of it bad) was about with regard to
most of what goes on in this forum. The subject of Baronage vs. Hunter
/de Guise was a matter of convenience as Goldstraw and Plowman were
skirting every issue I raised with them.
At the same time, my curiosities about rec.heraldry were being
answered... It was clear that you as well were playing the same game: I
have found over the years that to attempt to work constructive
criticisms into an ongoing "feeding frenzy" as takes place within
groups of posters like these only nets one with further haranguing and
labels of some sort of low morels. As you and most will recall, my
position was: "prove it?" I made the decision early on that a
persona - (very much unlike my true personality) was the only way I
was going to pin people like you down. I find it extremely unfortunate
that it is sometimes necessary, but it has worked, both here and
recently on the HSS it gave me a chance to see what changes have been
made there. I also received a nice letter from the Secretary with
regard to Plowman and Goldstraw's behavior, and it appears that they
have been put on notice...
You Michael, and others know very well what tactics you have been
using. I have no desire to cut and paste everything that's been said.
You are obviously adults and choose the language you use, most of it
unfortunately provocative and unproductive
Michael:
> When you say "if a mistake of some kind was made", are you saying that
you don't concede that Andrew Hunter is a fake prince and that French
titles can't be sold? What is your position on these two issues? >
My position on Hunter has from the outset been one of suspicion. I
consulted for my own interest with Baronage - and others to try and
uncover what was really going on here on this forum with regard to the
subject. And I can state that because of my open-mindedness I have
received a great deal more information than you have. I have not been
given permission to post my findings, and out of respect for the folks
I have communicated with - I won't. I will however continue to
observe both sides and use reason to draw my own conclusions.
>From what I can tell about French titles - they can't be sold. I
read François' web page with regard to that, and posted my opinion,
which was clear on the matter. Now, I'm not quite clear yet (at
least I can't remember) about the status of French Feudal Titles. I
think that what happens with regard to France is that the laws on
heraldry and titles become murky. Most people that I know of deal only
with the UK and the US, and because the laws in France differ so much I
for one have been reticent to crack open yet another volume to study
something I only have a passing interest in. It has been my suggestion
that someone like François publish a user friendly website that gives
the general public a place to go to look into these types of things. (I
think that this William fellow maybe attempting to do just that with
his Royal Lineage website, but the jury is still out on him as well).
Yet rather than take me up on clearly reasonable suggestion, Francios
engages in the same sort of online badgering! (slap the forehead:
"what's wrong with these guys!!?")
You all have a tremendous opportunity here and you're letting it blow
right on by you.
Michael:
> I am not sure why I should write a letter to Baronage Press pointing
out their errors>
Because in the interest of you research, full disclosure is the prize.
I will say that real good lawyer could punch a hole the size of a truck
through your genealogical evidence with regard to Hunter, because there
is a hole in it. It doesn't discount what you've done; it just
leaves your evidence in the realm of circumstantial... In light of
that, you must keep researching. (Yes, I am pushing you. I think that
you want to do better).
OCHI: I did read some of the posts, and I'm sure it did get a lot of
attention. I for one acknowledged my own support for Sean; not just
for his findings - but the way in which he goes about his work... And
that has been my point here from the beginning. The impression you
give, and which is supported by some, through your use of the language,
is that Baronage has been engaged in this fake title thing on more than
one occasion, and is somehow supportive of that market...(your own
posts have suggested exactly that). I for one have seen absolutely no
evidence to suggest that. What I have found has shown Baronage's
position to be quite the contrary. I have seen evidence to suggest
that Baronage had no reason - at the time - to doubt de Gusie. But
Hunter surfaced and the rest is history. My objection has only been
one as to why Baronage has not received the same considerations after
the fact that the OCHI has obviously gotten...
And Michael, you 'lifted' the title of an article by Baronage and
placed it as name for your own website. Absolutely nothing was said
about copyright. What you did was intentional and in bad form.
Lastly. I have done a great deal of research with regard to Scottish
and American history. I have traveled with regard to my work, and have
an untold amount of painstakingly researched documents that date to the
14th century. Because I choose not to publish my work, to date, is my
own business. I do however know what good research looks like and how
to present it.
So, I think that nothing is being 'raked over the coals', but
rather clarified. I think that there are just a more than handful who
have participated herein on this subject, and you say you have a
majority, but it's not unanimous. Your charge is to bring your work
to a unanimous conclusion - that's all. It can be done, if
that's truly what you want...
Regards
Greg
mj...@btinternet.com
Greg wrote:
>
> I will post one last time with regard to what has been labeled
> 'personalities', and then - perhaps - we can get on with it...
Greg, I have snipped the rest of your post because it is not worth
repeating. Once again, you have chosen not to take the opportunity to
address the issues, despite telling us how interested you are in doing
so. You've had months worth of chances to get on with it.
Instead you have continued your with criticisms of me and others
involved. You tell us you are a top-class researcher - with no
research in evidence to back up the assertion. You admit to adopting
false personalities and to passing off other's material as you own -
and you expect to be taken on trust. You tell us that you have far
more relevant material than I do (without knowing what else I have),
but say you must keep it secret. You claim that there are massive
holes in the chain of documentation that has been produced, but you
detail none. You hold out the promise of even bigger exposes than
this, but you deliver nothing. How does this assist us in extending
credibility to your claims?
I have won identification cases in the Supreme Court on much less
evidence than that available against Hunter, but you still have doubts.
You have had plenty of opportunities to demonstrate your credentials,
but you continue to blow hot air. Despite your character assessments,
there are plenty of intelligent people with relevant experience here
who can form reasonable judgments. That they differ from yours says
more about your deficiencies than theirs. If you wish to present the
"real investigation" of this sham, then do so, and save the bleating
for another time or another place.
No matter how perceptive or clever you might assert you are, your
behaviour here to date is strongly indicative that your opinion is of
no particular value, and that your future contributions are not likely
to add anything worthwhile. How many more opportunities do you wish to
squander?
Regards
Michael
StephenP
> I also received a nice letter from the Secretary with
> regard to Plowman and Goldstraw's behavior, and it appears that they
> have been put on notice...
>
For the record, I can categorically state that I received no such
"notice" from the committee. The relevant details are as follows:
*Letter dated 06Sep06 from the Secretary, advising that Greg McGibboney
had made a complaint over the "Scotch Cousins" thread at the HSS. This
complaint was to be discussed at the next committee meeting.
*Email I sent 07Sep06 to the Secretary wherein I put my position and
some background information. I also included the text of the excellent
analysis done by the associates of Nicholas Kutozov.
*Email received 16Sep06 from the Secretary advising that the committee
had discussed the Scotch Cousins topic and that they we quite happy
that me continue to operate as a moderator on the Forum.
Those are the facts; no spin, no spite and no wishful thinking.
Yours aye
Stephen
StephenP
....they were quite happy for me continue to operate as a moderator on
the Forum.
Stephen
StephenP
....they were quite happy for me to continue to operate as a moderator
on the Forum.
Stephen
mj...@btinternet.com
> On Nov 20th m...@btinternet.com wrote:
> >You are behaving like a willful child, seeking to divert attention.
> >
> >Here are the real issues for you to address: does Baronage Press still
> support Andrew Hunter's claims, and does Baronage Press still believe
> French titles can be sold? If so, why?
>
> Dear Michael
>
> I have been asked to suspend my activity here as a representative of
> Baronage,
Dear Eleanor
With respect, that is the first sensible decision I can recall
Frederick Hogarth having made in the past fifteen months. Were it not
for your constant goading, this matter would not still be receiving
attention. I sincerely hope that Baronage Press can spend some time
thinking about where it is at and what it is doing, and perhaps move
forward with a renewed emphasis on its former shcolarly activities for
which it once had a well-deserved reputation.
> and if I write again in that capacity I shall use my Baronage
> address, not this one. So this letter is from me and expresses my own
> views. It is not from Baronage.
Thanks you; you have made that clear.
>
> Some time ago when I asked the editor how I should respond to a point
> raised here he replied with two quotations in a note with no salutation
> and no signature. He wasn't communicating very much with anyone at the
> time, but I interpreted the brevity as subtext and read the quotations
> carefully. The first was from the interview with Wim Dennenberg --
>
> >> Question: So you'll write another?
> Answer: A sequel to this perhaps, and then we'll see. <<
>
> The second was from you, Michael --
>
> >> Despite promising us a sequel to this 2002 work of breathless
> prose, it seems the e-novels from Baronage have e-dried up since then.
> Writer's block, old boy? <<
>
> Apart from describing as "breathless prose" a book you had not read,
This is an assumption of yours which you present as fact. As it
happens, it is wrong. It is entirely typical of *your* modus -
unconscious I am sure. You make all kinds of assumptions, and then
weave whole posts of the basis of something that is pure fiction.
> you turned a "perhaps" into a promise. That twist, Michael, together
> with the sneer, is absolutely typical of the style you use here on
> rec.heraldry. I bet you wouldn't dare try to get away with it in your
> work as a forensic accountant.
In my work as a forensic accountant, and before that as a prosecutor,
and as a magistrate, I deal with facts. I also deal with the meanings
of words, something especially dear to me through having read English
Lit at uni. It is very tedious to have to give you lectures on the
meaning of what I say, but it is necessary because you are a master of
twisting. Again, much of this is undoubtedly unconscious on your part:
you see what you want to see, and then you are off like a hare. Here
is a definition of "promise", from the Oxford no less. "An indication
of future things (n); seem likely, produce expectation of (v);
synonyms: augur, bespeak, betoken, foretell, presage, indicate". I
used the word "promise" in the extract above in a precise and accurate
way. I shan't expect an apology from your for your misreading, or the
lecture that you give me on the basis of your mistake, because I know
you are not capable of operating in that fashion.
> Now let's look at your question --
>
> >> Will you amend your reliance on Dr Stavaux's repudiated views on
> French title sales? <<
>
> You've asked this question several times recently and I've ignored it
> because of the twists.
What twists? It's a perfectly straightforward question.
> At least one version described Dr Stavaux as
> the Baronage expert,
I also refer to "my doctor" but it doesn't mean I own the local medical
practice. He is BP's expert in the sense that BP sought to rely on him
as a reference in expounding its published views on the purported sale
of French titles
> but nowhere on the Baronage pages or in the PDF
> files does the name of Dr Stavaux appear. Nor has anyone been claimed
> by Baronage to be a Baronage expert. Only you have done this, Michael.
No, you say I have done this, but this yet another faulty conclusion
based on your wilful inability to comprehend otherwise plain English.
Are you seriously attempting to deny that it is Dr Stavaux who is
referred to in this paper?
> At least one other version of your question uses its tenses
> deliberately to imply the continuation of Baronage reliance on Dr
> Stavaux, and this version here too implies continuation.
The fact that BP revised and republished its papers clearly referring
to Dr Stavaux is pretty straightforward evidence that it continues to
rely on the views imputed to him. You do not need to wring some
imputed meaning from my use of tenses to arrive at this conclusion.
> Moreover, the
> various versions in their different ways imply that Baronage has
> ignored the repudiation. Well, that was all you, Michael. What
> Baronage wrote about the views it had sought is on the front page of
> the PDF file. This is the relevant part --
>
> >> ....... after asking whether the European Union had any views, we
> were led to a paper written by the head of a department in the European
> Commission who held a doctorate in law and believed French feudal
> titles to have retained their validity. As a consequence of this
> subject now being discussed increasingly on the Internet we asked the
> author for permission to publish his paper online and were informed
> that as he had not written it with open publication in mind, and as he
> had recently revised some of his conclusions, he could not allow us to
> publish it in its original form. As the original paper had been very
> persuasive in its influence ....... <<
The first misrepresentation is contained in the first line. Baronage
Press implies that the views attributed to Dr Stavaux are in some way
the views of the European Union: a classic appeal to authority. It
makes me laugh that you accuse me of "twisting".
Furthermore, the paper says that Dr Stavaux has "revised" his views.
It does not say that he has repudiated them, nor does it explain in
what way or to what extent those views have been revised. In any case,
the paper then seeks to rely on the original views (whatever they were)
regardless of the "revision".
Of course, you make much of the fact that BP does not name Dr Stavaux
in the paper. It is nevertheless clear that Dr Stavaux is the man
referred to. Andre de Guise, as you know, refers to him explicitly in
his webpage about selling French titles, saying:
"The following [justification of the sale of French titles] was written
by Dr Stavaux de Fontenoy, a Doctor of Law and Head of a Department in
the European Commission"
http://www.gothainternational.eu/Acquiring%20Foreign%20Titles.pdf
Note how closley it mirrors the description of your unnamed expert in
the BP paper. Furthermore, Dr Stavaux recognised himself in BP's
description - he has seen your paper - and he repudiates it completely.
I have his emails to me which I can post here if you wish, although I
must observe they too reflect poorly on Baronage Press.
>
> That discussion with the unnamed author was by telephone and its
> essence was subsequently confirmed by an exchange of e-mails. It is
> quite clear, isn't it? This front page states that the views
> originally held by a legally qualified man with a senior post in the EC
> had been persuasive and had now been changed -- and that is so
> different from the impression you try to give, Michael. That the views
> had been revised (the term used in the conversation) is explicitly
> acknowledged here. This ability of yours to ignore the actual words and
> then to set up arguments based on what you would have preferred to have
> been said wastes a lot of time. And as for the Baronage views on the
> sale of French feudal titles -- if you don't have the time to read
> them, just take the time to read the last page of the PDF file.
>
> There is another word you like to twist -- "endorse". You are an
> accountant and a lawyer and you know full well what that word means,
Indeed I do, and either you do not, or it is convenient for you to
pretend that you do not.
> and you know full well that the de Guise history uploaded as part of
> the Chinese operation was not endorsed by anyone at Baronage. It did
> not have a link from any Baronage page and it did not carry the name of
> Baronage on it.
It was carried on a Baronage web page and it was adduced voluntarily by
Frederick Hogarth in his capacity as the Editor of Baronage Press as
evidence of de Guise's purported descent and status during the thread
in which he patronised and insulted everyone who "dared" to disagree
with or question him. It may be found here:
> In common with all the peerage directories, Baronage
which incidentally is not, last time I looked, a peerage directory
> accepts the ancestry submitted by families and accepts them as correct
> until there is evidence of error, but the de Guise history did not even
> reach this stage. It was placed on the Baronage server for a purpose
> (and it was not alone there) but it was not a Baronage publication and
> there was no endorsement.
On the contrary - see above.
> The rank of André de Guise is another
> matter. You have recently quoted from the post that said --
>
> >> ....... we recognise Andre, Prince de Guise, as the holder of a title valid in the 21st century. <<
>
> The 21st century! What about the 20th century, Michael?
What about it? Has the nature of hereditary titles somehow utterly
changed during the past six years? Does Baronage Press now assert that
all you need to do in order to be a bona fide titleholder is to make
your claim and hope no-one queries it, or to ignore or berate them if
they do? Is it enough to fool your neighbours, or must you also
bamboozle the editor of a peerage directory?
> You're a
> lawyer. That sent you scampering back to check on the earlier
> paragraph where, after discussing a French duke whose title is accepted
> everywhere despite its inheritance having been outside the line of
> succession,
By the way, an important distinction of course, which you chose to
gloss over. The man who affects a French noble title because one was
held in the family, but on terms which would not have allowed it to
pass to him (a la Ruvigny), or the man who inflates his status a little
[a la Montpezat] is in an entirely different league to the grandson of
a dairy farmer who pretends to be a prince and makes money selling
titles.
> the text continued --
>
> >> Perhaps the answer is that he is de facto a duke but not de jure.
> Perhaps that is the situation with the Princes de Guise, but at this
> late stage it is difficult to establish with certainty. <<
>
> -- and you call that an endorsement? If you are sitting at your desk
> at Price Waterhouse Coopers and you are looking at the back of a cheque
> on which someone has written "signature looks good but its legality is
> difficult to establish with certainty" you wouldn't call that an
> endorsement even though it is unquestionably written on the back. You
> wouldn't, would you? Would you?
I like to think that, given my forensic experience, I could sniff out a
fake or questionable signature, just as I would like to think that a
man who makes his living exposing frauds could spot a fake when he
encounters someone calling himself the Princely Head of the House of
Guise-Lorraine. Furthermore, if I thought a signature looked good but
could not establish its legality, I would not write on behalf of my
Firm:
"On the balance of the arguments, and assisted by a privileged
understanding of signatures, we recognise this as a cheque valid in the
21st century"
It defies belief that you seek to characterise this as something other
than an endorsement.
>
> That intrusive and thus seemingly irrelevant phrase was the key to the
> subtext for intelligent readers, and you are intelligent, Michael, and
> you did not miss it. But it was inconvenient, wasn't it? So you
> ignored it. The general theory, not necessarily believed by you but
> you found it fun to play with, is that Baronage started its operation
> twelve years ago with the intention of wiping out the traders in bogus
> titles so that it could monopolise the market with the help of a bogus
> prince, and that recently it invented the concept of French feudal
> titles and has been flogging them off all over the place for huge sums
> of money.
Another cheap debating trick - grossly inflate your opponents'
argument, then knock it down. Here are the facts: Baronage Press has
built a reputation as a fraud-buster, an operation which defends the
innocent from purchasing defective titles and which exposes the conman
and the sham. Frederick Hogarth decided on his own volition to post in
support of Andre de Guise's claims, and to abuse and belittle those who
had posted contrary views (views which of course turned out to be
correct). "Think you a little din can daunt my ears?" quoth he [and it
is I who is accused of sneering"]. He sought to use his reputation to
bolster Andre de Guise - the fake prince who sells questionable titles.
When the claims were subjected to further scrutiny, his employees came
in on the discussion. "I'm not so sure that its members take their
'titles' seriously", Tommy asserted of the Order of the White Greyhound
on 15 July. "There are about 133,000 people called Andrew Hunter on
the internet alone", you posted on 30 July. Were these deliberate
attempts to stymie further investigation - as Frederick Hogarth has
described his initial intervention in an email to me whose full details
I have not published to date - or were you simply posting what you were
told without really knowing anything about the subject you were opining
about?
> Well, not exactly all over the place, and not exactly
> selling them but certainly advertising them, well perhaps not actually
> advertising them but definitely saying they could be sold. And the
> reality, Michael? Baronage has never sold a title, has advertised one
> unsellable title as bait for an operator who has since died, has
> introduced one buyer to a source for a feudal title required for a
> purpose which captured the editor's sympathy, and has insisted, at a
> time when it was certainly true, that lands which had been titled and
> are held by some to retain those titles were being sold in France in
> transactions passing through French notaries to people who wanted to
> have a title and were advised by French lawyers.
A cop out. Baronage Press trades on its reputation as being, as Tommy
put it (15 July) "[the team that] have fought the scum selling bogus
titles". Caveating out of legal responsibility does nothing to remove
the stain of having acted as a go-between when a fake sold a title
fraudulently. Does only committing one indiscretion justify or excuse
it? And having made that 'one mistake', is it acceptable to ignore it
and then abuse anyone who tries to question it? Baronage Press itself
states that "familiarity [with French nobilliary law] to the extent
achieved by peerage lawyers in the British Isles is claimed to require
a lifetime of dedication" and that "lawyers known to have advised
buyers seem to have accepted what was offered without demur". Having
noted how difficult it was for a lawyer to master French nobilliary
law, does Baronage Press seriously believe that the French lawyer who
went to Harvard with the purchaser was doing anything other than giving
sign off on the land transfer?
> That was common
> knowledge and the existence of those sales needs no citations. The
> last paragraph of the PDF file, referring to the original summary
> states --
>
> >> In the composition five years ago of the summary listed in the
> opposite column the views of both sides of the validity argument were
> taken into account and the balance was tipped by the fact that lands
> held to be anciently titled were going to buyers advised by French
> lawyers, and those transactions were owed to the buyers' wish to
> possess a French title. As only one such purchase is known to have
> occurred during the last twelve months, this may indicate that French
> lawyers are now taking a different view of the validity. The advice of
> the Baronage editors remains as it was: buyers must retain an
> independent French lawyer -as emphasised throughout the Baronage
> website. <<
>
> So what now, Michael? Are you going to accuse me of being childish
> because I have the audacity to disagree with you?
No, I have always enjoyed entirely pleasant and even close
relationships with a wide variety of people who hold views
diametrically opposed to mine across a range of spectra. It is
impossible to survive in my professional sphere without being able to
do so. You are childish because you misconstrue language, you present
your opinions and second-guesses as established facts, and you do not
engage with the core issues in a logical or rational way.
> Are you going to
> accuse me of dodging the issues? Are you going to accuse me of playing
> with words? Or are you going to accept that the obsession of certain
> members of this forum in pulling Baronage down has led a few along some
> very twisted paths to some very bizarre conclusions?
If "we" were obsessed with pulling Baronage down, I hardly think we
would have spent fifteen months trying to demonstrate where they have
made mistakes and suggesting that these be admitted and remedied. In
the course of this period I have been sent all kinds of material -
allegations, documents, etc - which I could have used had I wished to
damage or embarrass Baronage Press. If damage has been done, you
should look to the real causes: Frederick Hogarth's ill-advised support
for a fake and his title sales, and your intemperate and irrational
attempts to defend the indefeasable.
>
> Those are my views, Michael.
>
> Eleanor
Thanks you for sharing them. I find you an intelligent person, and
admire your impressive literary style. I am sorry we have had to cross
swords in this fashion, and that the manner in which you have conducted
yourself prevents me from respecting you as I would otherwise
undoubtedly have done. I hope you will continue to post here on
matters where you clearly are able to offer an intelligent
contribution.
Regards
Michael
mj...@btinternet.com
ele...@gnucnu.com schrieb:
> On Nov 20th m...@btinternet.com wrote:
> >You are behaving like a willful child, seeking to divert attention.
> >
> >Here are the real issues for you to address: does Baronage Press still
> support Andrew Hunter's claims, and does Baronage Press still believe
> French titles can be sold? If so, why?
>
> Dear Michael
>
> I have been asked to suspend my activity here as a representative of
> Baronage, and if I write again in that capacity I shall use my Baronage
> address, not this one. So this letter is from me and expresses my own
> views. It is not from Baronage.
>
> Some time ago when I asked the editor how I should respond to a point
> raised here
Let me just emphasise this rather important point, in case anyone
missed it: it is difficult to construe this as anything other than a
confession that you post material here which is based on instructions
received from Frederick Hogarth. So much for you being an independent
contributor. So much for those despicable suggestions of agents
producing ghost-written posts. So much for your (and Mr McGiboney's)
judgment and credibility on this score.
MA-R
the_ver...@comcast.net
Game, Set, and Match!
Greg
On Nov 20, 12:38 pm, "StephenP" <plow...@uk2.net> wrote:
> Greg wrote:
> > I also received a nice letter from the Secretary with
> > regard to Plowman and Goldstraw's behavior, and it appears that they
> > have been put on notice...For the record, I can categorically state that I received no such
> "notice" from the committee. The relevant details are as follows:
>
> *Letter dated 06Sep06 from the Secretary, advising that Greg McGibboney
> had made a complaint over the "Scotch Cousins" thread at the HSS. This
> complaint was to be discussed at the next committee meeting.
>
> *Email I sent 07Sep06 to the Secretary wherein I put my position and
> some background information. I also included the text of the excellent
> analysis done by the associates of Nicholas Kutozov.
>
> *Email received 16Sep06 from the Secretary advising that the committee
> had discussed the Scotch Cousins topic and that they we quite happy
> that me continue to operate as a moderator on the Forum.
>
> Those are the facts; no spin, no spite and no wishful thinking.
>
> Yours aye
>
> Stephen
Stephie, whatever you say doesn't jive with letter that I have in hand
from Alan Watson, so good luck: unless of course you're saying that the
HSS isn't true to its word...
And Reading has shown himself to be nothing more than a thumbscrew.
So we're all back to square one. Too bad
mj...@btinternet.com
> I will post one last time with regard to what has been labeled
> 'personalities', and then - perhaps - we can get on with it...
On 20 November 2006 at 23.44 Greg wrote:
> Reading has shown himself to be nothing more than a thumbscrew.
It seems we cannot take you at your word, Mr McGiboney. Rather than
participate in the adult debate, you have simply reverted to form,
name-calling from the sandpit; it didn't take you long.
MA-R
Greg
On Nov 20, 4:29 pm, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
> On 20 November 2006 at 17.41 Greg wrote:
>
> > I will post one last time with regard to what has been labeled
> > 'personalities', and then - perhaps - we can get on with it...On 20 November 2006 at 23.44 Greg wrote:
>
> > Reading has shown himself to be nothing more than a thumbscrew.It seems we cannot take you at your word, Mr McGiboney. Rather than
> participate in the adult debate, you have simply reverted to form,
> name-calling from the sandpit; it didn't take you long.
>
> MA-R
You are a twisted and stupid man Michael Andrews-Reading. I have tried
to be civil to you but you will have no part of it.
Your charges that Frederick Hogarth or anybody else is setting up my
posts and opinions, or anybody else's posts for that matter is just
further example of your crowning stupidity and grasping at straws.
What you are doing herein is is entirely intentional on your part,
there is no other reasonable explaination for it.
And I shall say outright, that in light of what you have shown yourself
to be, it is only reasonable to conclude that anybody who approves of
your idiocy suffers from the same defect in character as yourself.
You're going to have to prove a great deal with the charges that you've
leveled, but you're a big shot right? It should be easy for you.
So. How much money has Baronage Press or any agent therein taken with
regard to any title - like the the one you charge in the case of De
Guise? You will therefore please share with us the documents that you
have to prove your charge - of sale - or participation therein.
You will also share with us the exact French Feudal Title(s) that was
sold by Baronage as you have charged, and you will also show how
Baronage or an agent therein benefited from said sale.
Franz
>
> So. How much money has Baronage Press or any agent therein taken with
> regard to any title - like the the one you charge in the case of De
> Guise? You will therefore please share with us the documents that you
> have to prove your charge - of sale - or participation therein.
>
> You will also share with us the exact French Feudal Title(s) that was
> sold by Baronage as you have charged, and you will also show how
> Baronage or an agent therein benefited from said sale.
I would be suprised if they sold ANY titles at all. To buy one, one
would necessarily-
1) have loads of funds of which to dispose;
2) be a complete meglomaniac, and at least a little obessessive about
(self-perceived) social status; and,
3) be the King of Mugs.
Why not pay the fee for a Coat of Arms from the College of Arms instead?
Greg
On Nov 20, 8:07 pm, "Franz" <joseffra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > So. How much money has Baronage Press or any agent therein taken with
> > regard to any title - like the the one you charge in the case of De
> > Guise? You will therefore please share with us the documents that you
> > have to prove your charge - of sale - or participation therein.
>
> > You will also share with us the exact French Feudal Title(s) that was
> > sold by Baronage as you have charged, and you will also show how
> > Baronage or an agent therein benefited from said sale.I would be suprised if they sold ANY titles at all. To buy one, one
> would necessarily-
> 1) have loads of funds of which to dispose;
> 2) be a complete meglomaniac, and at least a little obessessive about
> (self-perceived) social status; and,
> 3) be the King of Mugs.
> Why not pay the fee for a Coat of Arms from the College of Arms instead?
Hey Franz,
I agree with you completely. But let's see what Clarence Darrow - er,
Michaelandrewsreading has to say about his charges...
Regards
Greg
heral...@mail.ru
Greg wrote:
> Goldstraw and Plowman were polluting the HSS
> forum
What an utterly slanderous misrepresentation of the truth. These two
gentlemen are well respected and hard working members of the HSS
community who give of their time freely. Their contributions both to
the debates on the forum and to its management are most appreciated by
the membership. Mr. McGibonny gives nothing and takes all - he has,
over the last few months, gained a reputation for being rather unstable
and is being talked about in such terms at meetings attended by
ordinary members.
I have spent a great deal of time following all the debates on the HSS
forum over the last few years and, as a member of the HSS, I can
testify that Greg's version of the truth resides somewhere under a rock
on planet McGibonny - population ONE!
Nicholas
StephenP
Nicolas
Thank you for your support. The "problem" with any forum is that there
are a lot of "lurkers". However, I am confident that, though silent,
they see the reality of the situation and are not fooled by the antics,
fantasy & bile of a minority.
Yours aye
Stephen
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> You are a twisted and stupid man Michael Andrews-Reading. I have tried
> to be civil to you but you will have no part of it.
Oh, I must have missed that. Was that when you were calling me an
idiot, or a thumbscrew?
>
> Your charges that Frederick Hogarth or anybody else is setting up my
> posts and opinions, or anybody else's posts for that matter is just
> further example of your crowning stupidity and grasping at straws.
It also happens to be factually accurate. You admitted on 9 September
that you had posted verbatim a post that Frederick Hogarth had scripted
for you. Here's what you said, given that you appear to have forgotten
yet again:
"You're right. I did not write that line of questions. Fredrick sent
me an email with those questions on it: he seems reluctant - I think -
to appear here"
And Eleanor yesterday admitted posting material on Frederick
Hogarth's instructions; perhaps you missed this, so here it is again
for you:
"Some time ago when I asked the editor how I should respond to a
point raised here"
> What you are doing herein is is entirely intentional on your part,
> there is no other reasonable explaination for it.
Of course my posts are intentional. Not everyone posts randomly
generated rubbish like you.
>
> And I shall say outright, that in light of what you have shown yourself
> to be, it is only reasonable to conclude that anybody who approves of
> your idiocy suffers from the same defect in character as yourself.
Oh, now you've hurt my feelings. We're all a bunch of idiots here,
folks - Greg has spoken. Given your character and judgments as
displayed here, I shall wear your assessment of my defects as a badge
of pride.
>
> You're going to have to prove a great deal with the charges that you've
> leveled, but you're a big shot right? It should be easy for you.
>
> So. How much money has Baronage Press or any agent therein taken with
> regard to any title - like the the one you charge in the case of De
> Guise? You will therefore please share with us the documents that you
> have to prove your charge - of sale - or participation therein.
How about taking a look at Baronage Press's own webpage setting out
their own admissions of involvement in the purported sale of a French
title? You've apparently forgotten about this for the twentieth
time, so here it is:
http://www.baronage.co.uk/hamilton-1.pdf
>
> You will also share with us the exact French Feudal Title(s) that was
> sold by Baronage as you have charged, and you will also show how
> Baronage or an agent therein benefited from said sale.
Yawn. See above. I have, of course, never charged Baronage Press with
having sold a title. But then, you would never twist or misrepresent,
would you Mr McGiboney?
I like you, Greg, you're a funny guy. Keep on asking the same old
questions, and I'll be more than happy to provide you with the same
old answers. That's the joy of facts: they never lose their
currency. Bear in mind though, if you wish to continue having Baronage
Press's name dragged through the mud, you might not find Frederick
Hogarth so nice and friendly towards you in future.
Cheers
Michael Andrews-Reading
www.areyoubeingconned.com
Derek Howard
> Derek Howard says that the jury might still be out in respect of the
> contemporary existence of the Manor of Stanbury. I can't make a
> judgement on that, but I can state that the files show that as late as
> 1805 there were people who believed in its existence. On the 12th
> August that year there was a meeting of the Court Baron and a
> Perambulation of the Manor boundaries of which we have a copy of the
> transcript. It reads as follows --
>
> Perambulation of the Boundaries of Stanbury, 1805
An interesting account in its own right. This follows a notice dated 5
Aug 1805 from Benjamin Rawson, as** "lord of the manor of
Bradford"**, to the lord of the manor of Wycoller, of his intention
to perambulate the township of Stanbury (Bradford archives, DB8 C8). As
has already been pointed out the transcript omits the name of the manor
- most unusual as most manor court documents and perambulations state
what it is they are dealing with. Has there been some selective editing
at some stage?
> The Court Baron of Benjamin Rawson Esquire and the Court for
> perambulating the boundaries of Stanbury, held by adjournment at the
> house of Mathew Wilkinson, the Cross Inn, in Stanbury, on Monday the
> twelfth day of August in the forty fifth year of the reign of His
> Majesty King George the Third and in the year of our Lord One Thousand
> Eight Hundred and Five.
>
> Before me
>
> JO. BENTLEY, Steward
Yes, Joseph Bentley was the subject of a Grant of the office of chief
steward to **the manor of Bradford** dated 3 Jul 1795 between 1
Benjamin Rawson, **lord of the manor of Bradford**; and 2 Joseph
Bentley of Bradford, gentleman (Bradford Archives, DB8 C10)
> Names of the Jurors for the Lord of the Said Manor
>
> John Sturges Esq Sw (ome)
> Mr. Greenwood Bentley
> Mr. Joseph Hollings
> Mr. Thomas Fearnley
> Mr. Key
> Mr. Mathew Wilkinson
> Mr. William Sharp
> Mr. Jonas Tasker
> Mr. John Priestley
> Mr. Jonathan Walton
> Mr. James Broadbent
> Mr. Robert Ray
These should be checked with the lists of jurors to be summoned to
appear at the Bradford court baron and court leet 1792-1808 (Bradford
Archives, DB8 C6).
> "Beginning at a Bridge called Smith Bank Bridge we did find the
> boundaries as follows, viz.
>
> "From the said Bridge we proceeded up the North side of the Beck called
> the Sun Beck otherwise Chart Beck, to a place called Withens, and from
> thence we proceeded southwards, along the said Beck, and from the Head
> of the same Beck southwardly, across certain Inclosed Lands of Joseph
> Midgley and John Crabtree to certain Stones upon the Moors called the
> Nooning Stones, and from thence we proceeded southwardly in a line
> across the said Moors to a certain stone called Walshaw Dean Head, and
> marked with the letter H, and from the said Stone we proceeded
> westwardly in a triangular direction along the north side of an old
> Ditch to a certain place called Blackstone Clough Head and from thence
> to certain Stones called Awcomb Dean Stones; and from Awcomb Dean
> Stones we proceeded to a place called Robins Ditch; and from Robins
> Ditch to a place called White Hossocks, and from White Hossocks to Crow
> Hill Spring and from Crow Hill Spring we went in a northward direction
> to a certain Stone called 'the Lad or Scarr on the Hill', and from
> thence we proceeded in a line northward, to a certain Beck on the
> southside of the Highway leading from Stanbury aforesaid to Colne,
> called the North Beck, and then we proceeded along the southside of the
> said Beck, until we came to a certain beck called the South Beck, which
> runs up from the said Bridge called Smith Bank Bridge into the said
> North Beck, and then we proceeded up the North side of the said Beck
> called South Beck, until we came to Smith Bank Bridge aforesaid, the
> place at which we began."
Thanks for that. I am sure Bradford Archives would love to have a copy
for their files on the manor of Bradford.
> We have also a PDF file of notes on Stanbury's history compiled by the
> local historian which refer to this Perambulation and also to another
> he arranged in 2002 (of which we appear to have no record). I have
> uploaded this PDF file to --
>
> <www.baronage.co.uk/StanburyNotes.pdf>
I would be interested in the name and credentials of this "local
historian". I do hope he is not in the same class as the alleged
Stavreux authority.
I recognise a number of the citations where they are the same as those
I have supplied, however there are several important dates missing -
the Crown grant of the manor, the purchase by Marsden, details of the
purchase by Benjamin Rawson, the transfer to the Butler family - or
rather, for the last, he gives, without support:
"1864 The Viscounts Mountgarret acquire the Lordship of Stanbury
through marriage to Miss Elizabeth Rawson heir of Benjamin Rawson.".
This is easily checkable. The Complete Peerage tells us that Henry
Edmund (Butler) 1816-1900, Viscount Mountgarret, married 11 Mar 1844,
at St. George Hanover Square, Frances Penelope, 3rd daughter of Thomas
Rawson of Nidd Hall, co. York. On the death of her aunt, Miss Rawson of
Nidd Hall, in 1891, Lord Mountgarret inherited personalty to the amount
of £561,300, his son inheriting the large real estate of the Rawson
family.
His son Henry Edmund (Butler, sometime Rawson-Butler)(1844-1912),
Viscount and Baron Mountgarret, assumed name and arms of Rawson by
royal licence on 26 May 1891, but, by a later licence resumed name of
Butler only. He m 1st, 1 Oct 1868, Mary Eleanor 6th dau of St John
Chiverton Charleton of Apley Castle Salop; m 2nd 1902 Robinia Marion da
Edward Hanning Hanning-Lee (formerly Lee) [CP, ix, 327, and note (e)
and 328] The estates of Miss Rawson of Nidd Hall near Ripley devolved
on the family 1891 were 7,604 acres in Yorkshire and other ... [CP, ix,
329]
So, names, dates and relationships wrong in the 'Baronage' local
historian's notes regarding a key event. Not a good start.
> Although these notes are supported by citations they may not prove
> whether the Manor of Stanbury exists today or not, but they do indicate
> that at least some people believed it existed in 1805 and that others
> may do still today.
If they do then I hope and trust they will now desist. Another easily
found external source transcript at
<http://www.jowitt1.org.uk/Samuel%20Tayler.htm> thanks to S D Jowitt:
>From the 1612 Inquisition into the Manor of Bradford.
"The 1612 Inquisition into the Manor of Bradford is a list of
freeholders, leaseholders and tenants within the manor of Bradford,
taken by Sir William Ingleby, Henry Maynard esq., Robert Wall, gent. on
2 September 1612. The **manor** of Bradford, Manningham and Standbury
included: Horton Magna and Horton Parva, Bowling, Wike, Clayton,
Thornton, Allerton, Wilsden, Oxenhope and Haworth" (taken from
Bradford Archives, Hailstone Collection, DB1/1/52). [My emphasis of the
singular].
> Derek reports the view of Bradford Archives as --
>
> >> "They cannot trace any Stanbury Manor Court Rolls", which leads
> them to "believe that Stanbury as a Manor in the 17th-19th centuries
> didn't exist" and that they "cannot find any written trace of it". <<
>
> That seems to be a firm judgement from people who ought to know,
Maybe I should add here the positive evidence that Stanbury was in the
manor of Bradford:
Surrender of copyhold land dated 6 Apr 1548 between 1. Wilfrid Heaton &
John Heaton his son 2. Lord of the Manor of Bradford, concerning: 2
acres of land at Ponden Faytte in Stanbury, for the use of John Heaton
(Bradford Archives, HEA/A/8)
Grant of copyhold land in Stanbury between 1. Lord of the Manor of
Bradford; and 2. William Hainworth 10 Oct 1560 (Bradford Archives,
HEA/A/20)
Grant of copyhold land in Stanbury between 1. Lord of the Manor of
Bradford; and 2. Robert Holmes 12 Oct 1560 (Bradford Archives,
HEA/A/11)
Grant of copyhold land in Stanbury between 1. Lord of the Manor of
Bradford; and 2. John Heaton, 19 Sep 1561 (Bradford Archives, HEA/A/22)
Grant of copyhold of 2 acres of land in Stanbury between 1. Lord of the
Manor of Bradford; and 2. Robert Holmes 1 Oct 1562 (Bradford Archives,
HEA/A/23)
Surrender of copyhold land dated 12 Oct 1561 between 1. Robert Holmes;
and 2. Lord of the Manor of Bradford concerning: land in Stanbury, for
the use of John Holmes, the son of Robert (Bradford Archives, HEA/A/21)
Surrender of copyhold land dated 14 Dec 1626 by Robert Heaton late of
Stanbury, dec'd, to the Lord of the Manor of Bradford, then to the use
of Robert Heaton his son, concerning land in Bradford & Manningham
(Bradford Archives, HEA/A/134)
Grant between 1. Lord of the Manor of Bradford; and 2. John Heaton, son
& heir of John Heaton of Ponden in Stanbury, dec'd, of copyhold land in
Ponden, Stanbury 8 Oct 1607 (Bradford Archives, HEA/A/49)
Grant of a parcel of copyhold land in Stanbury, between 1. Lord of the
Manor of Bradford; and 2. Thomas Royd of Stanbury, 8 Jul 1624 (Bradford
Archives, HEA/A/261)
Power of attorney dated 1629 between 1. Tenants of Stanbury; and 2.
Robert Heaton of Stanbury; concerning the infranching of copyhold
estates in the Manor of Bradford (Bradford Archives, HEA/B/123)
Enfranchisement of copyhold lands in the Manor of Bradford, dated 27
Feb 1631 between 1. Robert Heaton of Stanbury, yeoman; John Midgley the
elder of Headley, gent.; and 2. Michael Pickles of Stanbury; John
Heaton of Stanbury, yeomen (Bradford Archives, HEA/B/125)
Opinion of John Stanhope, dated 14 Aug 1746, in a matter concerning the
commons, moors & waste grounds in Stanbury, conveyed by the Lords of
the Manor of Bradford to Robert Heaton & John Midgley in 1631 (Bradford
Archives, HEA/B/130)
So not only were the copyholders enfranchised, becoming freeholders and
gained the mineral and sporting rights (see my previous posts), but the
lords of the manor (the City merchants) also conveyed the commons, etc.
This did not leave much for future LoM of Bradford to claim with regard
to Stanbury, which continued to have a lord of the manor only by being
part of the wider manor of Bradford.
The Bradford Manorial court returns of constables dated 1770-1843
Returns for Bradford, Heaton, cum Clayton, Haworth, Wyke, Bowling,
Horton, Allerton cum Wilsden, Bolton, Manningham, Thornton, Clayton,
Heaton and Allerton, with notices for the court leet and court baron of
Benjamin Rawson, lord of the manor of Bradford, 1832-1834 (Bradford
Archives, DB8 C15). Stanbury of course was the only part of the manor
of Bradford in Haworth township, hence the return for Haworth which
otherwise consisted of other manors.
All the above readily available on
<http://www.dserve.wyjs.org.uk/dserve.exe?dsqApp=Archive&dsqDb=Catalog&search=advanced&dsqCmd=Search.tcl>
> but
> how is this to be reconciled with the local historian's note of the
> 1795 sale of the "Manors of Bradford and Stanbury to Benjamin Rawson
> Esq. for £2,100" for which he cites the "Bradford Antiquary, vol. 3
> (1907)"?
I might add that I have e-mailed the West Yorks Archive Service to try
and obtain a copy of any memorial in the West Riding Registry of Deeds
of the presumed 1795 conveyance to Benjamin Rawson. I shall be happy to
share the contents if I manage to obtain it.
> (Yes, I know this is not a primary source but, like Derek,
> right at this moment I have to work with what is on the shelves and
> what is in the files.) There seems to be a conflict here, and if there
> is, then who is in error? Did the local historian misread or invent
> the Bradford Antiquary? Or did H.F. Killick misread or invent the
> "written trace" of this late 18th century sale? Or have the people at
> Bradford Archives overlooked something? I don't know the answer. Does
> anyone? Ten years elapsed between the Rawson purchase and the
> Perambulation. Does that tell us anything?
It would appear to tell us that by the addition of a single letter s to
"manor" it is possible to sell a non-existent manor for presumably
a suitably large sum. Lesson 1 - never take anything at face value in
this shady world of selling manorial titles, don't trust what you are
told; - 2 always make a thorough investigation of any material you
intend to use; 3 - never pay for anything you are not sure of, 4 -
don't hold up stories as exemplars until they have been properly
checked out. I hope that the current "owner" of this alleged
"manor" considers a court case against whoever sold it to him; the
trading standards officers should be asked look into this business.
Having said that, I do think that it is not sufficient to deliberately
leave a misleading article on the web whatever caveats are temporarily
placed before it. Especially if the site concerned has prided itself
and built a reputation on being squeaky clean in matters of sales of
titles. There is too much inaccuracy being put about and I would
strongly urge Frederick Hogarth to remove and, when he feels well
enough again, to re-write the Stanbury article, perhaps as an example
of what may happen to the unwary. I wish him a speedy recovery.
Derek Howard
mj...@btinternet.com
Derek Howard schrieb:
> ele...@gnucnu.com wrote:
> > Derek Howard says that the jury might still be out in respect of the
> > contemporary existence of the Manor of Stanbury. I can't make a
> > judgement on that, but I can state that the files show that as late as
> > 1805 there were people who believed in its existence. On the 12th
> > August that year there was a meeting of the Court Baron and a
> > Perambulation of the Manor boundaries of which we have a copy of the
> > transcript. It reads as follows --
> >
> > Perambulation of the Boundaries of Stanbury, 1805
>
> An interesting account in its own right. This follows a notice dated 5
> Aug 1805 from Benjamin Rawson, as** "lord of the manor of
> Bradford"**, to the lord of the manor of Wycoller, of his intention
> to perambulate the township of Stanbury (Bradford archives, DB8 C8). As
> has already been pointed out the transcript omits the name of the manor
> - most unusual as most manor court documents and perambulations state
> what it is they are dealing with. Has there been some selective editing
> at some stage?
Heaven forfend!
(snip of interesting material)
> I do think that it is not sufficient to deliberately
> leave a misleading article on the web whatever caveats are temporarily
> placed before it. Especially if the site concerned has prided itself
> and built a reputation on being squeaky clean in matters of sales of
> titles. There is too much inaccuracy being put about and I would
> strongly urge Frederick Hogarth to remove and, when he feels well
> enough again, to re-write the Stanbury article, perhaps as an example
> of what may happen to the unwary. I wish him a speedy recovery.
Derek
Thank you for sharing your painstaking research on this matter; it
conclusively shows the actual nature of this purported 'manor'.
Kind regards,
"A. Thumbscrew, Esq."
Joseph McMillan
Ha! At last we see your real agendas, Mr. "A. Thumbscrew" if that's
youre reel name which I doubt! You claim to be the scorje of false
title sellers but hear we see that you have assumed to yourself the
lofty style of "esqoir." What gives you the right to be an eskwire?
Are you the son of a knight? Can you prove it with reel documents Mr.
Thumbscrewe? Not like those obvious inconclusive phony documents you
tried to palmm off on us about the Duke of Geeze.
Kind regards,
Grog
mj...@btinternet.com
Joseph McMillan schrieb:
Zounds, you have caught me out! I have a document - of course I do -
but it has a hole in it, which dates from the time when the socle began
to crack.
<note to self: insert acrid and immature sarcasm here>
Posted on behalf of... (which I deny)
PS I think you will find that "esqoir" is in fact a lofty Anti-Style.
George Lucki
"Joseph McMillan" <j_mcm...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1164221995....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Grog,
As many have suspected you, Grog, are merely the front for someone else's
words. Quite sloppily you have not disguised your message headers and we now
know you to in fact be j_mcmillan. Well John, or whatever your real name
may be you cannot fool us. The really Grog does not write nearly as well as
you as you do. It is time to 'fess (a heraldic term) that is cut straight
across to the truth. What is your hidden agenda? Just a few days ago you
were supporting the self-styled McBubba clan (of which, for shame, Lord
Lyon is apparently a member!) and today you are attacking an esquire and a
Duke who is so humble that he has not even a single pub named in his honour.
Shame.
George Lucki
StephenP
where does his auntie's sty come into this?
I will have to misread the posts again.
Stephen
Greg
Keep on beating boys. (like monkeys in a cage)
I'm not go'in anywhere