Re: Rohese de Boulogne to William Leete

[U...@aol.com]

Direct Descendants of Rohese of Boulogne

1 Rohese of Boulogne
.... +Richard de Lucy d: 1179
2 Maud de Lucy d: Aft. 1175
.... +Walter FitzRobert d: 1198 Burial: Dunmow Priory
3 Robert FitzWalter d: 09 December 1235 Burial: Dunmow Priory, ESS, ENG
.... +Rohese m: Aft. 27 December 1207 d: 1256 Burial: Dunmow Priory, ESS,
ENG
4 Walter FitzRobert b: Abt. 1219 d: Abt. 10 April 1258
.... +Ida Longespee d: Aft. 10 April 1262
5 Ela FitzWalter d: Aft. 1302
.... +William de Oddingseles b: Abt. 1235 d: 19 April 1295
6 Ida de Oddingseles b: Abt. 1265 d: Bet. 01 March 1321/22 - 1328
.... +Roger de Herdeburgh d: Bef. 09 February 1283/84
7 Ela de Herdeburgh b: Abt. 1282 d: Aft. 05 July 1343
.... +William le Boteler b: 11 June 1274 m: Bef. February 1315/16 d: Bef.
14 September 1334
8 Ankaret le Boteler b: in of Wem d: 08 October 1361
.... +John Le Strange b: 25 January 1305/06 m: Bef. 20 May 1327 d: 21 July
1349
9 Eleanor Le Strange d: 20 April 1396
.... +Reynold de Grey b: Abt. 1319 d: 04 August 1388
10 Ida Grey b: Abt. 1368 d: 01 June 1426 Burial: Cockayne Hatley, BDF,
ENG
.... +John Cokayne b: Abt. 1370 d: 22 May 1429 in Cockayne Hatley, BDF,
ENG Burial: Cockayne Hatley, BDF, ENG
11 [13] Elizabeth COKAYNE
.... +[12] Lawrence CHEYNE b: Abt. 1396 in Fen Ditton, CAM, ENG m: Abt. 13
December 1421 in Bury Hatley, BDF, ENG d: 30 December 1461 Burial: Barnwell
Priory
12 [14] John CHEYNE, Sir b: Abt. 1424 d: 14 July 1489 Burial: Barnwell
Priory
.... +[15] Elizabeth REMPSTON b: Abt. 1418 m: Bef. 1449 Burial: Barnwell
Priory
13 [2] Elizabeth CHEYNE
.... +[1] John HASILDEN b: 1448 d: Bet. 01 August 1499 - 1505
14 [3] Beatrice HASILDEN
.... +[4] Robert FREVILLE, Esq. d: April 1521
15 [5] Thomasine FREVILLE b: Bef. 1520 in England
.... +[6] Christopher BURGOYNE b: Bef. 1520 in Long-Staunton, CAM, ENG
16 [7] Thomasine BURGOYNE b: Abt. 1555 in ENG d: in ENG
.... +[8] Robert SHUTE b: Abt. 1528 in Gargrave, YKS, ENG m: 1576 in OF,
ENG d: April 1590 in ENG
17 [9] Anna SHUTE b: Aft. 1550 d: Aft. 1650
.... +[10] John LEETE b: Abt. 13 May 1575 in Dodington, HUN, ENG d: Abt.
December 1648
18 [11] William LEETE, Gov. b: 1612 in Doddington, HUN, ENG d: 16 April
1683 in Hartford, CT
2 ALICE de Lucy
.... +ODONEL de Umfreville d: 1182
3 MARGERY de Umfreville d: Bef. September 1198 Burial: Belvoir Priory,
LEI, ENG
.... +WILLIAM d'Aubeney III b: Aft. 1146 d: 07 May 1236 Burial: Newstead,
LIN, ENG
4 WILLIAM d'Aubeney IV d: Abt. 15 September 1242 Burial: Beauvoir
Priory, LEI, ENG
.... +ISABEL m: Bef. 1239 d: Aft. 1284
5 ISABEL d'Aubeney b: Abt. 1233 in Belvoir Castle, LEI, ENG d: 15 June
1301 Burial: Newstead Priory near Stamford, LIN, ENG
.... +ROBERT de Roos m: Abt. 1243 d: 17 May 1285 Burial: Kirkham, YKS, ENG
6 WILLIAM de Roos b: Abt. 1255 in YKS, ENG d: Bet. 12 May - 16 August
1316 Burial: Kirkham Priory, YKS, ENG
.... +MAUD de Vaux b: Abt. 1261 m: Bef. 1287 d: Bef. 1316 Burial: Pentney
Priory, NFK, ENG
7 AGNES de Roos d: Bef. 01 December 1328
.... +Payn TYBOTOT b: Abt. November 1279 m: Bef. 03 September 1311 d: 24
June 1314 in Battle of Bannockburn
8 John de TYBOTOT b: 20 July 1313 d: 13 April 1367
.... +Elizabeth ASPALL m: 1348 d: Aft. 12 October 1372
9 Payn de TYBOTOT b: 1353 d: Abt. 21 March 1412/13
.... +Agnes WROTH d: Bef. 1413
10 ELIZABETH de Tibetot
.... +John DANEYS, Sir
11 Elizabeth DANEYS
.... +William HASILDEN b: Abt. 1411
12 [1] John HASILDEN b: 1448 d: Bet. 01 August 1499 - 1505
.... +[2] Elizabeth CHEYNE
13 [3] Beatrice HASILDEN
.... +[4] Robert FREVILLE, Esq. d: April 1521
14 [5] Thomasine FREVILLE b: Bef. 1520 in England
.... +[6] Christopher BURGOYNE b: Bef. 1520 in Long-Staunton, CAM, ENG
15 [7] Thomasine BURGOYNE b: Abt. 1555 in ENG d: in ENG
.... +[8] Robert SHUTE b: Abt. 1528 in Gargrave, YKS, ENG m: 1576 in OF,
ENG d: April 1590 in ENG
16 [9] Anna SHUTE b: Aft. 1550 d: Aft. 1650
.... +[10] John LEETE b: Abt. 13 May 1575 in Dodington, HUN, ENG d: Abt.
December 1648
17 [11] William LEETE, Gov. b: 1612 in Doddington, HUN, ENG d: 16 April
1683 in Hartford, CT
2 Aveline de Lucy d: Aft. 1206
.... +Gilbert de Montfitchet d: Abt. 1187
3 Richard de Montfichet
.... +Millicent
4 Margery de Munfichet
.... +Peter de Faucomberge d: Aft. April 1230
5 Walter de Faucomberge d: Abt. 01 November 1304 in Rise Burial: Priory
of Ninkeeling
.... +Agnes de Brus m: Bef. November 1243 d: Abt. 1278 Burial: Guisborough
Priory
6 Anice de Faucomberge
.... +Nicholas Engaine, Sir d: December 1322
7 John ENGAINE, Sir b: 30 May 1302 d: 16 February 1357/58
.... +Joan PEVEREL
8 Elizabeth ENGAINE b: Abt. 1341 d: Abt. 1387
.... +LAURENCE de Pabenham b: Abt. 1334 in Of Pavenham, BDF, ENG d: 10
June 1399
9 KATHERINE de Pabenham b: Abt. 1372 d: 17 July 1436
.... +William CHEYNE, Sir d: Bef. 06 June 1399
10 [12] Lawrence CHEYNE b: Abt. 1396 in Fen Ditton, CAM, ENG d: 30
December 1461 Burial: Barnwell Priory
.... +[13] Elizabeth COKAYNE m: Abt. 13 December 1421 in Bury Hatley, BDF,
ENG
11 [14] John CHEYNE, Sir b: Abt. 1424 d: 14 July 1489 Burial: Barnwell
Priory
.... +[15] Elizabeth REMPSTON b: Abt. 1418 m: Bef. 1449 Burial: Barnwell
Priory
12 [2] Elizabeth CHEYNE
.... +[1] John HASILDEN b: 1448 d: Bet. 01 August 1499 - 1505
13 [3] Beatrice HASILDEN
.... +[4] Robert FREVILLE, Esq. d: April 1521
14 [5] Thomasine FREVILLE b: Bef. 1520 in England
.... +[6] Christopher BURGOYNE b: Bef. 1520 in Long-Staunton, CAM, ENG
15 [7] Thomasine BURGOYNE b: Abt. 1555 in ENG d: in ENG
.... +[8] Robert SHUTE b: Abt. 1528 in Gargrave, YKS, ENG m: 1576 in OF,
ENG d: April 1590 in ENG
16 [9] Anna SHUTE b: Aft. 1550 d: Aft. 1650
.... +[10] John LEETE b: Abt. 13 May 1575 in Dodington, HUN, ENG d: Abt.
December 1648
17 [11] William LEETE, Gov. b: 1612 in Doddington, HUN, ENG d: 16 April
1683 in Hartford, CT

As always, corrections & comments most welcome

Always optimistic--Dave

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Thanks, Dave, for the great post. Much appreciated. It's fascinating
to see the sundry and various descents from Rohese of Boulogne to each
immigrant - they're all so unique. The second descent you posted
through the Fauconberge, Engaine, Pabenham, and Cheyne families is very
distinctive. By all means, please post more descents to other
immigrants if you have them.

Since you asked for corrections and comments, I have a couple of
changes to offer you:

For "Odonel de Umfreville," read "Odinel de Umfreville"
For "Margery de Umfreville," read "Margaret (or Margery} de Umfreville"
For "Payn Tybotot," read "Pain de Tibetot"

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/13/05 8:05:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, U...@aol.com
writes:

<< 7 John ENGAINE, Sir b: 30 May 1302 d: 16 February 1357/58
.... +Joan PEVEREL >>

On this Joan you give no dates.
However in a recent post here Douglas has shown that she was living at her
husband's death "...On 19 March following [1357/8] the escheator in co.
Leicester was ordered to take the fealty of Joan, and the manors which she and her
husband had held jointly at his death, were liberated to her."

In addiiton Douglas has shown that she was living a little later by this
document from the A2A collection
"... a grant dated 30 June 1359 from Sir William Bernake to Lady Joan,
"formerly wife of John Engayne, Knt." and other parties. ..."

Will Johnson

[mj...@btinternet.com]

I agree with the first and second lines down so far as the respective
13/12 Elizabeth Cheyne married to John Hasilden - these are backed up
by a number of sources, e.g. Sir John Cheyne's will of 31.7.1488 proved
PCC 21.7.1489 [PROB/11/8] mentions his daughter Elizabeth Haselden; the
1575/1619 Visitation of Cambridgeshire [sub Cheney, p119 Harl. Soc.
Pub] shows Sir John's daughter "Elizabeth ux. John Hasilden of Com.
Cambridg" while sub Haselden [p 88] "John Haselden of Meldreth in Com.
Cambridg [m] Elizabeth d. of John Cheyney".

I don't think the next generation is by any means certain, however:
i.e. an alleged daughter to John Haselden & Elizabeth Cheyne, Beatrice
Haselden, married to Robert Freville.

Robert Freville of Little Shelford (died 1521) left a will proved at
Ely which names his wife Rose; his children are stated to include a
daughter Thomasine. The will of Rose Freville "late the wife of Robert
Freville" was similarly proved at Ely in 1529. In the copy I have of
this latter will, Rose states she is the mother of the sons named in
Robert's will, but does not refer to daughters, so there is always a
possibility that she was a second wife, I suppose, but there is no
positive reason for believing this to be the case, so far as I know.

Rose's maiden name is not known. It is sometimes speculated that she
was a Peyton, as Sir Christopher Peyton stands at the head of the her
trustees named in her husband's will - but Sir Christopher's own will
(PCC Prob 11/15) does not mention her. Alternatively, she is sometimes
said to be a Haselden, probably because Francis Hasilden [son of John
and Elizabeth nee Cheyne] is likewise mentioned in Robert Freville's
will - for instance, the entry for Robert & Rose's son George Freville
in The History of Parliament says (without references) that he was "2nd
son of Robert Freville by Rose ?da. of Anthony Hasleden" [also a son of
John & Elizabeth].

I also have the wills of Anthony Haselden [proved PCC 1.6.1527, Prob
11/22] and Francis Haselden [Proved PCC, 21.11.1522, Prob 11/20]
neither of which refers to Rose or any other Frevilles - although the
former does refer to "my cosen Christopher Burgoyn" - the Burgoyne
entry at p24 of the Visitation of Cambridgeshire does not (at least in
my notes of it) shed any light on what this relationship would be - and
"my nephew Thomas Chichele ( the Visitation tells us that Christopher
Burgoyne's aunt "Elizabeth Burgoyne married Thomas Chichley"), so
perhaps we should read this to infer that Anthony Hasilden's otherwise
unnamed wife was a Burgoyne?

If any additional references are known, I should be delighted to see
them. Please let me know if you would like further particulars of the
Hasilden and related documents I hold - some of the wills go into a
large amount of genealogical detail.

In relation to the third line, I am in agreement with the Pabenham
descent so far as the alleged Beatrice Haselden at 13, but I am not
sure that the Mountfichet part of the descent is certain?

Regards

Michael

[mj...@btinternet.com]

PS The Mountfichet part does seem right, just the question marks at
Beatrice as above.

MAR

[mj...@btinternet.com]

PPS I have muddled the above reference to the Peytons - Sir Robert
Peyton stands at the head of the trustees of Rose Freville's marriage
settlement according to her husband's will; Sir Robert Peyton died in
1518, according to VCH Cambridgeshire [sub Isleham]; it is the will of
his uncle Christopher Peyton (1507) which I have seen and which,
although providing an extensive list of relations, does not mention
Rose or any of the Frevilles.

Apologies for relying too much on memory.

MAR

[mj...@btinternet.com]

Many thanks - this tallies with what I have found. It seems we do not
know what family Robert Freville's wife was from. I am still digging
away, mostly with original wills from Ely, and will post details if I
find anything to cast further light.

Michael

[mj...@btinternet.com]

>From Little Shelford Church:

"In gratia et misericordia dei his iacent Robertus Frevill armiger
quondam dominus istius villae et Rosa uxor eius qui obiit xo mensis
Aprilis M.CCCCC.XX.II [sic] quoram animabus propicietur deus"

In God's grace and mercy here lie Robert Freville, armiger, sometime
lord of this village, and Rose his wife, who died the tenth day of the
month of April 1522 [should be 1521] on whose soul may God have mercy.

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

John Brandon wrote:
> Gary the Body Roberts, _Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants_, pp. 538-39,
> says that disproof of the Peyton descent and of the identification of
> Rose Peyton as the wife of Robert Freville is to be found in Eugene A.
> Stratton, _Applied Genealogy_, pp. 70-72, 74, 165, 170; while disproof
> of any Haselden descent is found in _Nexus_ 13 (1996):129. Instead, he
> gives a line from Robert II of France, through the Dukes of Burgundy,
> Counts of Ponthieu, de Stoteville, de Say, Dabridgecourt, Staverton,
> Burgoyne, Shute, Leete.

Dear John ~

Thanks for the correction. Much appreciated. Does this sever the
descent from Rohese de Lucy for the Leete family?

When you have a moment, can you post the specific descent from King
Robert II down to Leete, as given by Gary?

By the way, for those of you planning to come to the FGS Conference in
September here in Salt Lake City, I understand that Gary Boyd Roberts
is going to be here. If so, be sure to bring your pedigree charts and
have Gary look at them for you. Gary is a virtual walking
encyclopedia. He should be sitting at the NEHGS booth in the vendors'
hall. The NERHGS staff will have a list for people to sign up to have
Gary review their charts. Gary is awesome!

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

John Brandon wrote:
> Hi Douglas,
>
> Yep, I think it does sever the Leete's line to Rohese ...

>
> > When you have a moment, can you post the specific descent from King
> > Robert II down to Leete, as given by Gary?
>

> Okay; it may take a while (tomorrow morning?).
>
> John

Tomorrow is fine, John. There's no hurry.

DR

[mj...@btinternet.com]

>Thanks, Dave, for the great post. Much appreciated. It's fascinating
>to see the sundry and various descents from Rohese of Boulogne to each
>immigrant - they're all so unique. The second descent you posted
>through the Fauconberge, Engaine, Pabenham, and Cheyne families is very
>distinctive. By all means, please post more descents to other
>immigrants if you have them.

(snip)

>Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Although the leap from the Haseldens to the Burgoynes appears faulty in
this case, it might be of interest to note that through the Pabenhams
we get to The Queen (and thus Prince Charles and Prince William) thus:

9. Katherine de Pabenham m (1) Sir William Cheyne; m (2) Thomas
Aylesbury
10. Isabel Aylesbury
11. Catherine Chaworth
12. Thomas Leake
13. Elizabeth Leake
14. Elizabeth ("Bess of") Hardwick
15. William, 1st Earl of Devonshire
16. William, 2nd Earl of Devonshire
17. William, 3rd Earl of Devonshire
18. William, 1st Duke of Devonshire
19. William, 2nd Duke of Devonshire
20. William, 3rd Duke of Devonshire
21. William, 4th Duke of Devonshire
22. Lady Dorothy Cavendish
23. Lord William Cavendish-Bentinck
24. Nina Cavendish-Bentinck
25. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
26. Queen Elizabeth II
27. Charles, Prince of Wales
28. Prince William of Wales

MAR

While

[Leo van de Pas]

Many thanks for this line. By checking I found I have Katherine twice in my
system, once with each husband. I have changed that now. OK Katherine is an
ancestor of Prince William but she is also an ancestor of
Gary Boyd Roberts - Brice Clagett - Ian Fettes - Tony Hoskins - Tim
Powys-Lybbe - John Ravilious - John Steele Gordon

and Hugh Grant - Rachel Ward - Audrey Hepburn - Gloria Grahame (Oscar
winner) - Randolph Scott

and Prince Albert of Monaco - Sarah Ferguson - Aga Khan IV - Camilla of
Cornwall

and Gateways (incomplete) Hon. George Percy, Margaret Brent, Col. Giles
Brent, Col. Thomas Ligon, Rev. Edward Foliot, Katherine Deighton, Jane
Deighton, Frances Deighton, Jane Lowe, Capt. John West, William Rodney, Afra
Harlestoln, William Strother, Elizabeth Hagburne, Amy Wyllys, Thomas
Hamilton, Nicholas Sewall, Charles Calvert 3rd Lord Baltimore, Herbert
Pelham, Nuriel Gurdon, Capt. Francis Champernoun, Mary Launce, Essex Beville

This is showing yet another genealogical spiderweb connecting people all
over the world.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

[Cliff Watts]

Leo named in the Gateways group Nuriel Gurdon. I'm sure his finger slipped,
because he clearly intended to list Muriel.

Cliff Watts

[Leo van de Pas]

Good thing you are watching :-)
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cliff Watts" <hcw...@verizon.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Rohese de Boulogne to William Leete

[Lyn Wolf]

In a message dated 8/13/05 8:05:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
U...@aol.com
writes:

<< 7 John ENGAINE, Sir b: 30 May 1302 d: 16 February 1357/58
.... +Joan PEVEREL >>

What is known of the ancestry of Joan Peverel? Hal Bradley's website
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~hwbradley/aqwg694.htm#12249
has the parents of Joan as Sir Robert Peverel and Alice de Lisle, dau
of Sir Robert de Lisle and his wife Margaret Beauchamp. He sites the
following sources:
AR7 pp. 136-29
CP 8:48
Plantagenet Ancestry by Douglas Richardson p 451

I don't have AR7 or CP, but Douglas only says Joan was the 'daughter
of Sir Robert
Peverel, by Alice, his wife'. Do either of the others state who Alice
was, or that she
was the wife of Sir Robert?

regards

Lyn Wolf
Australia

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[U...@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/17/05 1:42:19 AM Central Daylight Time,
lyna...@yahoo.com.au writes:

I don't have AR7 or CP, but Douglas only says Joan was the 'daughter
of Sir Robert
Peverel, by Alice, his wife'. Do either of the others state who Alice
was, or that she
was the wife of Sir Robert?

regards

Lyn Wolf
Australia

CP 8:48chart shows Alice de Lisle as wife of Robert Peverel. It does not
show their children.

Always optimistic--Dave

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear John ~

Thanks for sharing this information from Gary Roberts's book with the
newsgroup. Much appreciated. You're dah man!

Anyone care to comment on this descent?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

John Brandon wrote:
< OK, here it be ...
<
< 1. Robert II, King of France, d. 1031 = Constance of Provence
< 2. Robert I, Duke of Burgundy = Helie of Semur-en-Auxois
< 3. Henri I, Duke of Burgundy = Sybil of Barcelona
< 4. Eudes I, Duke of Burgundy = Matilda of Burgundy</DIV>
< 5. Alice of Burgundy = William III Talvas, Count of Alencon and
< Ponthieu
< 6. Guy II, Count of Ponthieu = Ida ...
< 7. John I, Count of Ponthieu = Laure de St. Valery
< 8. Helene of Ponthieu = William de Stoteville (Guillaume
< d'Estouteville, Seigneur d'Estoutemont) of Stratfield, Hampshire
< 9. Alice of Stratfield = Robert de Say
< 10. Sir William de Say = Sybil ...
< 11. Robert de Say = Emma ...
< 12. Sir Thomas de Say = Isabel ...
< 13. Sybil de Say = ...
< 14. Elizabeth ... (only daughter and heir) = Sir Nicholas
< Dabridgecourt, possible son of Sir Sanchet Dabridgecourt
< (Dabrichecourt), Knight of the Garter
< 15. Sir John Dabridgecourt = Joan Lynde
< 16. John Dabridgecourt = Agnes Bekingham
< 17. Thomas Dabridgecourt = Beatrice ...
< 18. (probably) Elizabeth Dabridgecourt = Ralph Staverton
< 19. Elizabeth Staverton = Thomas Burgoyne
< 20. Christopher Burgoyne = Thomasine Freville, etc.

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/17/05 11:28:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, U...@aol.com
writes:

<< I don't have AR7 or CP, but Douglas only says Joan was the 'daughter
of Sir Robert
Peverel, by Alice, his wife'. >>

I also have a note that says that Joan was still living 30 Jun 1359
and for the source I cite this newsgroup (July 2005) and the A2A catalog
but I did not quote the sources so I'm not sure what the document now was.

Will Johnson

[U...@aol.com]

Thanks to all that replied to my posting of the purported line from Rohese
to William Leete. I have now removed Beatrice
Hasilden as a daughter of John and wife of Robert Freville to avoid passing
on obviously faulty data. Sorry if I misled anyone, but if you do not put it
out there, bad data stays in your database.

Always optimistic--Dave

[Lyn Wolf]

Dear Dave and others

Thankyou Dave for your reply. Is there any more information
in the text of CP about Alice de Lisle & Robert Peverel?
Does CP have anything under Peverel? I am still confused.

From the archives, Aug 10 2004, 6:31 pm
> Walter de Langton, Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, is stated
> to be brother of Robert Peverel and uncle to Edmund Peverel,
> who married Elizabeth de Lisle.

Therefore, if Edmund Peverel was the son of Robert and his wife
Alice de Lisle, how could he (Edmund) have married Elizabeth de
Lisle? This would have him marrying his mother's sister.

regards

Lyn Wolf

From: <U...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:27 AM

CP 8:48chart shows Alice de Lisle as wife of Robert Peverel. It does
not
show their children.

Always optimistic--Dave

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Lyn ~

There is an excellent article on Bishop Walter de Langton in Nottingham
Medieval Studies, 35 (1991): 70-76. I recommend anyone interested in
this family read it. The article is quite detailed and well
researched. As I recall, the article shows that Bishop Walter de
Langton was a full brother to Robert Peverel.

As for the Peverel-de Lisle connection, my personal research indicates
that Robert Peverel's son, Edmund Peverel (died 1331), married before
1330 Elizabeth de Lisle, daughter of Robert de Lisle and his wife,
Margaret de Beauchamp. Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel was living as late
as 1348. Fuller particulars on this couple can be found in my book,
Magna Carta Ancestry (2005).

The following sources can be consulted for further reference to Edmund
Peverel and his wife, Elizabeth de Lisle:

Baker, Hist. & Antiqs. of Northampton 1 (1822-30): 619-620 (Lisle
pedigree); Papal Regs.: Letters 2 (1895): 398; VCH Bedford 2 (1908):
224; Copinger, Manors of Suffolk 3 (1909): 96-97; Clay, Extinct &
Dormant Peerages of the Northern Counties (1913): 125-126 (sub De
Lisle); Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1347-1356 (1921): 65; VCH Berkshire 4
(1924): 218; VCH Huntingdon 2 (1932): 322-323; VCH Northampton 3
(1930): 143-144; VCH Cambridge 4 (1953): 136-137, 180-182; VCH
Shropshire 8 (1968): 1-18; Sutherland, Eyre of Northamptonshire 1
(Selden Soc. 97) (1983): 224-229 (abstract of a suit dated
1330-1331 involving a dam on Edmund Peverel's manor at Coldham);
Nottingham Medieval Studies, 35 (1991): 70-76.

Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel did in fact have a sister named Alice de
Lisle. However, surviving records show conclusively that she married
Thomas Seymour, Knt., not Robert Peverel. As such, if the chart in
Complete Peerage 8:48 indicates that Alice de Lisle married Robert
Peverel, it is incorrect.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the colonial 17th
Century New World immigrants who descend from Edmund Peverel and his
wife, Elizabeth de Lisle:

l. Henry Fleete.

2. Henry & William Randolph.

3. Hawte Wyatt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear Lyn ~

To the Newsgroup:

In a messagge posted on the thread "Re Rohese de Boulogne to William
Leete," DR has added a new heading "C.P. Correction Elizabeth de Lisle,
wife of Edmund Peverel" In that message :

(1)DR states inter alia "As for the Peverel-de Lisle connection, my

personal research indicates
that Robert Peverel's son, Edmund Peverel (died 1331), married before
1330 Elizabeth de Lisle, daughter of Robert de Lisle and his wife,
Margaret de Beauchamp. Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel was living as late
as 1348."

This information is in 8 CP 73, note (i). Whatever DR's personal
research may be, he adds nothing new except the unsupported statement
about Edmund's dates and that Elizabeth de Lisle was living as late as
1348.

DR adds "Fuller particulars on this couple can be found in my book,..."
and a long nonspecific (as to what is being cited) list of sources.

(2)DR states inter alia "Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel did in fact have

a sister named Alice de Lisle. However, surviving records show
conclusively that she married Thomas Seymour, Knt., not Robert Peverel.
As such, if the chart in Complete Peerage 8:48 indicates that Alice de
Lisle married Robert Peverel, it is incorrect."

This is most remarkable! CP has all the information regarding Thomas
Seymour in the first sentence (with citations). In note (i), cited
above, CP states that Alice was the wife of Thomas de Seymour and
appears afterwards to have married Robert Peverel (citing IPM). The
chart on page 48 shows that Alice was married two times: first to
Thomas de Seymour, and second to Robert Peverel.

So, what was DR correcting? He says "if the chart in Complete Peerage

8:48 indicates that Alice de Lisle married Robert Peverel, it is

incorrect." Doesn't he know what the chart shows? Is he offering a
correction to CP without checking CP?

DR created a new heading in the thread which promises a correction to
the Complete Peerage regarding Elizabeth de Lisle. He offers no
correction, only a possible addition (without citation). Then he says,
regarding her sister, if it a chart indicates Alice married Robert
Peverel , it is wrong, without citing authority.

What was the purpose of for posting this message? No usable
information regarding Elizabeth de Lisle was offered. Why name her in
the heading? Could it be that he wanted to take unmerited credit for a
CP correction or was it an opportunity to advertise his book, contrary
to netiquette?

CED

[Lyn Wolf]

To CED, Douglas Richardson & others

Thankyou for your replies. If CP Vol 8, p73, note (i) is
correct in stating Alice was the wife of Thomas de Seymour

and appears afterwards to have married Robert Peverel

(citing IPM), and the chart on page 48 shows that Alice

was married two times: first to Thomas de Seymour, and

second to Robert Peverel, wouldn't this require Edmund
Peverel to have been a son of Robert and an earlier wife?
Also, when would this second marriage of Alice de Lisle
to Robert Peverel have taken place?

What is actually known about the birth dates of both
Edmund Peverel and his sister Joan (who married John
Engaine)? Is there any date for the birth of Robert
Peverel? Are Edmund and Joan known to be full
siblings?

I will try to obtain the books cited through an inter-library
loan. This will take weeks if I can get them at all. As I'm
waiting to receive my copy of Douglas' book, I didn't mind
him telling me that there is more information in it.

As I see it, there is still something wrong here. Either Edmund
was not the son of Robert & his wife Alice (I don't know if the
chronology allows for this), or this Alice (wife of Robert) &
Elizabeth were not sisters.

regards

Lyn Wolf

----- Original Message -----
"CED" lees...@cox.net wrote

To the Newsgroup:

CED

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear CED ~

Reading through your abusive post, one gets the impression you have an
ax to grind. If so, I recommend you take it up in private. The
newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Lyn ~

Thank you for your good post.

Alice de Lisle did not marry Robert Peverel. She married Sir Thomas
Seymour.

Alice's sister, Elizabeth de Lisle, married Edmund Peverel.

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

DR seems to think that any comment on his posts other than a compliment
is abusive. Again, as in other cases, he seems not to understand a
word in the English language: "abusive."

I did ask certain questions as to why DR posted the message. The
information in his post was inconsistent with the heading which he
himself placed on the post. These are legitimate questions to be
answered.

Why should I take my comments on DR's posts, especially those of his
posts which are contrary to netiguette, up in private. Should all
criticism of his posts be taken up in private?

DR's post itself is not helpful to medieval genealogy; for it misleads
and adds no new information.

Making friends is not a stated purpose of this group.

As for the question of whether Alice de Lisle married, as her second
husband, Richard Peverel: if he has evidence that she never married
him, he should post it. So far, he has made statements without citing
evidence. That is not good medieval genealogy. Does he think that his
opinion is superior to CP? If so, he should give us evidence of his
qualification to have such superiority.

CED

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear CED ~

If you have evidence to show that I am wrong, by all means, please post
it. Otherwise, if you only have an abusive ax to grind (as seems to be
the case), you should take it to private.

The newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, and making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

Again, as has often been the case when DR is caught in an awkward
position, DR is attempting to twist the case, shift the burden. He asks
that I prove him wrong. That is not, and was not, the question. He
says that CP, both the note (i) on page 73 of volume VIII and the chart
after page 48 of that volume, are wrong. Both the note and the chart
indicate that Robert Peverel was the second husband of Alice de Lisle.
If he contends that CP is wrong, according to all standards of
scholarship, the burden of proof is upon DR to prove CP wrong.

If DR cannot put forward evidence that Robert Peverel was not married
to Alice de Lisle, that the CP note and chart are wrong, he should
admit that he has no such evidence. That would end this discussion, a
discussion which he began with an inexplicable post concerning Alice's
sister, Elizabeth de Lisle.

CED

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/19/05 8:42:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
lyna...@yahoo.com.au writes:

<< What is actually known about the birth dates of both
Edmund Peverel and his sister Joan (who married John
Engaine)? Is there any date for the birth of Robert
Peverel? Are Edmund and Joan known to be full
siblings? >>

As for Joan, daughter of Sir Robert Peveral we do know that she was born
before 1318 per CP, referring to Douglas' prior post:

"Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 75-77 (sub Engaine) has a good account of the
life history of Sir John Engaine, 1st Lord Engaine, died 1358. Regarding his
wife, Joan, the following information is provided:

"He married, soon after 12 Nov. 1318, Joan, daughter of Sir Robert Peverel,
of Castle Ashby, Northants, by Alice, his wife ... On 19 March following
[1357/8] the escheator in co. Leicester was ordered to take the fealty of Joan, and
the manors which she and her husband had held jointly at his death, were
liberated to her.""

Will Johnson

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/19/05 8:59:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:

<< Alice de Lisle did not marry Robert Peverel. She married Sir Thomas
Seymour. >>

Come now. You can't just make bald-faced statements without any proof and
expect everyone to just swallow them :)
Can you?
Will Johnson

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear CED ~

It is not necessary to be abusive, or misrepresent another poster's
statements. If you have a personal ax to grind (which you seem to do),
I recommend you take it to private. The newsgroup is for medieval
genealogy, and to make friends.

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Will ~

If you know of any evidence proving that Alice de Lisle married Robert
Peverel, I'd very much like to see it. As best I can determine, Alice
de Lisle had only one marriage to Sir Thomas Seymour, of Rode,
Somerset.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/19/05 11:44:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:

<< If you know of any evidence proving that Alice de Lisle married Robert
Peverel, I'd very much like to see it. As best I can determine, Alice
de Lisle had only one marriage to Sir Thomas Seymour, of Rode,
Somerset. >>

But the issue is, that you said C.P. is wrong, but provided nothing in the
way of argumentation as to why. Just your own statement that it's wrong.
Based on what?

We do know that Robert Peveral had a wife named Alice from C.P. do we not?
Or are you also saying that Robert did not have a wife named Alice?

Thanks
Will Johnson

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 359, footnote i (sub Saint Maur) has a
good account of the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour (or Seymour) (died
1358), of Rode, Somerset, the husband of Alice de Lisle. Regarding his
marriage, Complete Peerage says only the following:

"He married Alice _____."

So, the identification of Alice de Lisle's parentage would be yet
another addition to Complete Peerage.

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

Still DR will not give us the any evidence that Alice de Lisle was not
married to Robert Peverel. That was his original contention, a
contention which, if he is to be taken seriously as a genealogist,
ought to be supported by authority. This is especially the case when
his contention contradicts the Complete Peerage.

Why does my asking for his evidence constitute an "ax to grind?"

To be sure, in the past I have pledged to this newsgroup that I would
attempt to keep DR using logical arguments, with proper use of
language, and otherwise honest in his postings. I shall continue to do
so.

Is keeping DR honest an "ax to grind?"

Somebody in the group should take up that obligation to those good
genealogists who do not have time to spare for such a project. I am
not a genealogist; but my library holds sufficient materials related to
the sources that I can check them out.

By the way, in keeping track of DR's postings, I am beginning to learn
something about genealogy. DR should be thanked for that.

CED

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Newsgroup~

The abstract of the document below was found in the helpful online
National Archives catalogue
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/Default.asp). It
concerns the wardship and marriage of Edmund Peverel, minor son and
heir of Robert Peverel, which were granted by the king to Robert de
Lisle, Lord Lisle of Rougement (died 1343). Edmund Peverel was
subsequently married Lord Lisle's daughter, Elizabeth de Lisle.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + +
SC 8/32/1577

Covering dates [c. 1323]
Scope and content
Petitioners: John de Beaufou
Addressees: King and council
Places mentioned: Asshele (Ashley), [Northamptonshire]
Other people mentioned: Robert Peverel; Walter de Langton, Bishop of
Coventry and Lichfield; Edmund [Peverel], heir of Robert Peverel;
Robert del Idle (l'Isle); Richard de Rodeneye, Escheator [South of the
Trent]
Nature of request: John de Beaufou states that as the king was given to
understand that Robert Peverel and Walter de Langton, formerly Bishop
of Coventry and Lichfield, held of him in chief as of his crown, the
king seized the body of Edmund, son and heir of Robert, and kinsman and
heir of Walter, being under age, into his hand, together with his lands
and tenements, and granted the keeping of the lands and the marriage of
the heir to Robert del Idle. By virtue of this commission, Robert del
Idle has seized Walter de Langton's lands in Ashley, although they are
held not of the king but of John de Beaufou - as is proved by inquest
returned in Chancery. John asks that the grant be repealed with regard
to these tenements and the marriage of the heir, and that justice be
done to him, according to the form of the inquests.
Endorsement: Coram rege.A writ is to be sent to the justices of the
High Bench, together with a transcript of the inquests returned in
Chancery on this. And the justices are to have Robert come before them,
to find out if he knows any reason why the king should not do justice
to the plaintiff; and when the arguments for the king and for the party
have been heard, the justices are further to do justice and reason.

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 359, footnote i (sub Saint Maur) has a
> good account of the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour (or Seymour) (died
> 1358), of Rode, Somerset, the husband of Alice de Lisle. Regarding his
> marriage, Complete Peerage says only the following:
>
> "He married Alice _____."
>
> So, the identification of Alice de Lisle's parentage would be yet
> another addition to Complete Peerage.

To the Newsgroup:

Complete Peerage, volume 8, page 73, identifies Alice de Lisle, wife of
Thomas Seymour, as the daughter of Robert de Lisle by his wife,
Margaret, daughter of Walter de Beauchamp of Alcester.

If DR considers the footnote defective in failing to tell us the name
of Alice's family, why the does he say that it is a "good account of
the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour?" Is this further evidence that
DR uses words without thinking of their meaning?

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear CED ~

If you have a personal ax to grind (which you seem to do), I recommend
you take it to private. The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and
to make friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

John Brandon wrote:
> >By the way, in keeping track of DR's postings, I am beginning to learn
> >something about genealogy. DR should be thanked for that.
>

> How odd that that you should see it as your duty to keep DR "on track"
> in his genealogical research, when by your own admission you know
> nothing about it (at least up 'til now).

I'm glad to hear that CED thinks he or she is learning something by
reading my posts. That's welcome news.

[CED]

John Brandon wrote:
> >By the way, in keeping track of DR's postings, I am beginning to learn
> >something about genealogy. DR should be thanked for that.
>

> How odd that that you should see it as your duty to keep DR "on track"

Brandon:

To put quotes on that which is not quoted is dishonest.

My words were "track of DR's postings." That is not the same as
keeping DR "on track" as you posted. You should be ashamed of a
purposeful misquote.

CED

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> John Brandon wrote:
> > >By the way, in keeping track of DR's postings, I am beginning to learn
> > >something about genealogy. DR should be thanked for that.
> >
> > How odd that that you should see it as your duty to keep DR "on track"
> > in his genealogical research, when by your own admission you know
> > nothing about it (at least up 'til now).

Brandon:

I never said that I know nothing about genealogy. I have said, and do
now say, that I am not a genealogist. There is a difference. DR
claims to be a genealogist; but he errs in ways that I see and make
note of.

Yes, I have learned from watching and checking out DR's postings. One
ought to learn from the mistakes of others.

CED

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup~

To the Newsgroup:

Is the abstract posted by DR an attempt to prove that Alice de Lisle
never was married to Robert Peverel, as indicated by the Complete
Peerage? CP does show that Elizabeth de Lisle married Edmund Peverel.
The abstract gives nothing new on that question. I see no evidence to
contradict CP regarding either Alice or Elizabeth in that abstract. CP
cites an IPM.

CED

[CED]

John Brandon wrote:
> >To put quotes on that which is not quoted is dishonest.
> >
> >My words were "track of DR's postings." That is not the same as
> >keeping DR "on track" as you posted. You should be ashamed of a
> >purposeful misquote.

Brandon:

Even though I have not contended that I should keep DR "on track," I
accept your word that you simply used a "colloquialism." I was
surprised that you used it since, no matter what else I could think of
you, I had not doubted your honesty before that posting.

Speaking of learning from mistakes: You have taught me to go more
slowly and check my spelling. It's much better reading when care is
taken to spell correctly.

CED

>
> You are a silly old fool, aren't you? When I wrote "on track," I was
> not quoting you at all. One sometimes puts colloquialisms--such as "on
> track"--in quotes.

[mwelc...@yahoo.com]

CED

Since you are so worried about errors maybe you can go through the
newsgroup and point out everyone's error's. Or is it you have a fetish
for everytime Doug post.

Mike

[CED]

Mike:

When any of the others in the group make a claim as being a genealogist
and post corrections and additions to the Complete Peerage, as DR does,
I shall attempt to hold that claim and those postings to the same
standard as I attempt with regard to DR.

So, Mike you have nothing to worry about. Your little lists are safe.

CED

[mwelc...@yahoo.com]

CED

Thank You CED. As everyone know's your post are full of lies.

Mike

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Mike,

Is this the way to contribute? Messages should contain genealogy, not
accusations of lying. I understand (I haven't followed it to clearly) that
Richardson disagrees with CP and it appears that CED maintains that
Richardson did not look correctly and asked him to substantiate.

To reply that Richardson thinks CED has an axe to grind is not an answer.
CED challenged the correctness of genealogical assertions by Richardson and
Richardson owes himself and everyone else to reply to this with a
_genealogical_ answer, not with an emotional smokescreen to assist him in
avoiding coming to the point.

Dear Mike, I am disappointed in you for this message. Or am I seeing things
wrongly?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

[Tony Ingham]

Douglas,

I wonder how many of those who read these postings joined the list
because they wanted to "make friends".

I, personally, have made quite a few friends as a result of having
mutual research aims. That was not because we shared the same families,
but that we saw quality in the presentations and findings of the other
party.

I suggest, Douglas, that if you have a driving need for friendship that
you take positive steps to achieve your aim. May I suggest a fellow
member of the "Genealogy Who's Who". You could maybe both pander to each
other, massage your egos and provide unquestioning support. Otherwise
there is that "highly respected author" John Brandon, who delights all
and sundry with his provocative witticisms.

I suggest that you do not approach, for the purpose of making friends,
anybody on the list who has a half-way decent understanding of research.
All of them can spot the purpose of your charades and your inability to
discuss your research under the glare of the Gen-Med spotlight. Fancy
suggesting that anyone querying your often rushed and unsustainable
conclusions should do so privately. Is that the only recourse which
enables you to save face over seemingly irrelevant and ambiguous
corrections, etc? I think you could be a Paper Tiger", Douglas.

BTW this is not a criticism, but merely an appraisal of the value of
your contribution to the list.

Tony Ingham

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Tony ~

If you have something concrete to add to the discussion, by all means,
please do so. Otherwise, I suggest you take your complaints to
private. We're here to discuss medieval genealogy, not Douglas
Richardson.

Thanks, Tony!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

CED wrote:
< CP cites an IPM.
>
> CED

Dear CED ~

What does the IPM say? Please tell us.

[Leo van de Pas]

The methodology of Douglas Richardson is an import genealogical factor on
this list, and therefor seems quite relevant to this list. Also we have seen
too many messages of people complaining that you do not reply to private
messages.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>

[Tony Ingham]

Douglas,

Firstly, I am not complaining.

Secondly, I'm not discussing Douglas Richardson, merely making an
informed observation of your childish reply to CED:

>If you have a personal ax to grind (which you seem to do), I recommend you take it to private.
>
> The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and to make friends.

Lastly, I do not have anything concrete to add to the discussion. Don't tempt me though.

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Tony Ingham wrote:
> Douglas,

>
> Lastly, I do not have anything concrete to add to the discussion. Don't tempt me though.
>
> Tony Ingham

Dear Tony ~

If you have nothing to add to the public discussion, it's better you
should take your complaints to private. Ranting on the newsgroup may
be good therapy for you, but it does nothing for the rest of us.

[Leo van de Pas]

Avoiding pertinent genealogical questions also does not contribute to this
list. The therapy for you is obvious, you avoid the painful self examination
of your behaviour.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> CED wrote:
> < CP cites an IPM.
> >
> > CED
>
> Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

As you all know, some of us do not have access to the wonderful
resources available in Salt Lake City. I advised DR of the CP citation
of an IPM for Alice de Lisle, so that with his acccess to IPMs (which
he has cited than once), he could examine the CP citation and then find
the proper IPM and inform us all.

Rather than examine the IPM, he wants to one-up me by asking me what
the IPM says. I do not have access to that IPM and cannot do so.
Wouldn't it be so nice if DR could look it up there in SLC?

CED

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

CED wrote:

> Wouldn't it be so nice if DR could look it up there in SLC?
>
> CED

Dear CED ~

No, it wouldn't be "nice" if DR did your work for you. You need to
find the IPM. Then study and analyze it for content. Then report back
to us.

Good luck in your sleuthing!

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> CED wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be so nice if DR could look it up there in SLC?
> >
> > CED
>
> Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

This is another one of DR's twists and shifts of the burden, his oft
used means avoiding responsibility. I have nothing to prove. I am
relying upon an accepted authority, the Complete Peerage, which cites
an IPM. DR disputes the Complete Peerage; therefor he must carry the
burden of proof against the accepted authority (that is the normal
scholarly pratice). If he wants to prove the Complete Peerage to be
wrong in note (i)on page 73 of volume 8, the burden is upon him. I
simply advised him as to what the CP citation was.

I have no work to do on this item. DR set out a claim (challenging CP)
without citing authority. If he cannot back it up, then he must accept
the fact that he is in error.

I once thought that DR did his twisted arguments and shifts of the
burden of proof as a means of avoiding the admission of error. Now,
since he does it consistently and so often, I am beginning to think
that he does it in ignorance of good scholarly practice. The generally
accepted rule is that the person who challenges authority must carry
the burden of proof, using argument and providing sound evidence. Is
it possible that DR is unaware of this well accepted rule of
scholarship?

CED

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/19/05 4:59:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
starb...@hotmail.com writes:

<< Many of the regulars on this list are what I would call "users,"
following along avidly to spot the smallest clue of possible interest,
while rarely and stingily offering anything of their own. Tony, aren't
you just another "user" of this type? >>

Along with John :) I would like to point out to all "users" that the
A2A catalog is free to search for any and sundry.

I often come across interesting things while searching for someone completely
different. And while 99 percent of what I post is probably already known and
discussed, it's at least not known to me, and so might help out someone else.

So I would encourage everyone to get familiar with A2A, and perhaps we can
hit 10 thousand posts a month ..... (waits for the gasps).

Will Johnson

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

CED wrote:

> To the Newsgroup:

>
> I have nothing to prove. I am relying upon an accepted authority, the Complete > Peerage, which cites an IPM.

So what does the IPM say? You tell us. Don't buck and weave.

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
> So I would encourage everyone to get familiar with A2A, and perhaps we can
> hit 10 thousand posts a month ..... (waits for the gasps).
>
> Will Johnson

Gasps in Salt Lake City.

DR

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear CED ~
>

> It is not necessary to be abusive, or misrepresent another poster's
> statements.

To the Newsgroup:
Can anybody in the group point out how, in questioning DR's message on
Elizabeth and Alice de Lisle, I may have been abusive, or how I
misrepresented any of his statements?

CED

>If you have a personal ax to grind (which you seem to do),
> I recommend you take it to private. The newsgroup is for medieval
> genealogy, and to make friends.
>

> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Website: www.royalancestry.net
>

> CED wrote:
> > Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:

> > > Dear CED ~
> >
> > To the Newsgroup:
> >

> > Again, as has often been the case when DR is caught in an awkward
> > position, DR is attempting to twist the case, shift the burden. He asks
> > that I prove him wrong. That is not, and was not, the question. He
> > says that CP, both the note (i) on page 73 of volume VIII and the chart
> > after page 48 of that volume, are wrong. Both the note and the chart
> > indicate that Robert Peverel was the second husband of Alice de Lisle.
> > If he contends that CP is wrong, according to all standards of
> > scholarship, the burden of proof is upon DR to prove CP wrong.
> >
> > If DR cannot put forward evidence that Robert Peverel was not married
> > to Alice de Lisle, that the CP note and chart are wrong, he should
> > admit that he has no such evidence. That would end this discussion, a
> > discussion which he began with an inexplicable post concerning Alice's
> > sister, Elizabeth de Lisle.
> >
> > CED
> > >
> > > If you have evidence to show that I am wrong, by all means, please post
> > > it. Otherwise, if you only have an abusive ax to grind (as seems to be
> > > the case), you should take it to private.
> > >
> > > The newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, and making friends.

> > >
> > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> > >
> > > Website: www.royalancestry.net
> > >

> > > CED wrote:
> > > > Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:

> > > > > Dear CED ~
> > > >
> > > > To the Newsgroup:
> > > >

> > > > DR seems to think that any comment on his posts other than a compliment
> > > > is abusive. Again, as in other cases, he seems not to understand a
> > > > word in the English language: "abusive."
> > > >
> > > > I did ask certain questions as to why DR posted the message. The
> > > > information in his post was inconsistent with the heading which he
> > > > himself placed on the post. These are legitimate questions to be
> > > > answered.
> > > >
> > > > Why should I take my comments on DR's posts, especially those of his
> > > > posts which are contrary to netiguette, up in private. Should all
> > > > criticism of his posts be taken up in private?
> > > >
> > > > DR's post itself is not helpful to medieval genealogy; for it misleads
> > > > and adds no new information.
> > > >
> > > > Making friends is not a stated purpose of this group.
> > > >
> > > > As for the question of whether Alice de Lisle married, as her second
> > > > husband, Richard Peverel: if he has evidence that she never married
> > > > him, he should post it. So far, he has made statements without citing
> > > > evidence. That is not good medieval genealogy. Does he think that his
> > > > opinion is superior to CP? If so, he should give us evidence of his
> > > > qualification to have such superiority.
> > > >
> > > > CED
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Reading through your abusive post, one gets the impression you have an
> > > > > ax to grind. If so, I recommend you take it up in private. The
> > > > > newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> CED wrote:
>
> > To the Newsgroup:
> >
> > I have nothing to prove. I am relying upon an accepted authority, the Complete > Peerage, which cites an IPM.
>
> So what does the IPM say? You tell us. Don't buck and weave.

To the Newsgroup:

DR has now shows his old self in accusing me of the "buck and weave."
This is the familiar twist the argument procedure, then shift the
burden. For those who unfamiliar with this practice, he uses it --
(1) to put distance between himself and the substance of his argument
(whether Robert Peverel was the second husband of Alice de Lisle); and
(2) to cast the argument in terms of procedure rather than the
substance of the question (who should put forward the evidence).
In his first message under the heading of C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de
Lisle, wife of Edmund Peverel, DR made an unsupported statement that
Robert Peverel was not the husband of Alice de Lisle and that, if CP
said otherwise, it was wrong. I responded, using the CP citation, that
Robert Peverel was the second husband of Alice de Lisle, adding that CP
cited an IPM. Now DR says that I am to find the IPM, otherwise the
"buck and weave."

Whatever he might mean by that term, it is consistent with his
long-standing practice, when caught in error, of name-calling.

CED

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear CED ~

It's way time you told the truth. The REAL reason why you don't want
to post the IPM cited by Complete Peerage is because you KNOW it will
show I'm correct. Well, I'm not going to save you, CED. You got
yourself in this horrible mess all by yourself. Now you need to post
the IPM and explain yourself.

We're waiting, CED.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear CED ~
>
> It's way time you told the truth.

To the Newsgroup:

DR claims that Alice de Lisle was not married to Robert Peverel; but
offers no evidence to back up that claim. The Complete Peerage, note
(i) on page 73 of volume VIII, states inter alia that Robert left a
daughter, Alice, wife of Thomas de Seymour, who appears afterwards to
have married Robert Peverel and to have died in 1349 (citing Cal. Inq.
p. m. etc.) After page 48 of volume VIII, there is a chart on which
Alice, daughter of Robert de Lisle, appears, showing two husbands:
(1)Thomas de Seymour, and (2) Robert Peverel. That is what CP offers.

DR says that he disagrees, but refuses to offer evidence to support his
position. What I say has nothing to do with the question. I don't care
whether Alice married twice, thrice, or a dozen times. I have no
position to defend. Any attempt to place me between DR and the CP is
either a ruse or symptomatic of incoherence.

DR should give us evidence or admit that he he has none. Either way the
question was posed and reasonable people have, by now, the answer,
contrary to DR's intention.

I am ready to move on the next project and need a bit of time to
prepare. Spending more time on DR's twist the argument and shift the
burden process is a waste of my time. However, it is almost certain
that we shall see another version of DR's "twist and shift" in the near
future.

CED

[Chris Phillips]

Douglas Richardson wrote:
> It's way time you told the truth. The REAL reason why you don't want
> to post the IPM cited by Complete Peerage is because you KNOW it will
> show I'm correct. Well, I'm not going to save you, CED. You got
> yourself in this horrible mess all by yourself. Now you need to post
> the IPM and explain yourself.

For the rest of us, who are just interested in knowing the truth of the
matter, it would be very helpful if you could let us know why you think CP
is wrong about this.

Chris Phillips

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

My comments are interspersed. DR

CED wrote:
>
> To the Newsgroup:
>

> DR claims that Alice de Lisle was not married to Robert Peverel; but
> offers no evidence to back up that claim. The Complete Peerage, note
> (i) on page 73 of volume VIII, states inter alia that Robert left a
> daughter, Alice, wife of Thomas de Seymour, who appears afterwards to
> have married Robert Peverel and to have died in 1349 (citing Cal. Inq.
> p. m. etc.) After page 48 of volume VIII, there is a chart on which
> Alice, daughter of Robert de Lisle, appears, showing two husbands:
> (1)Thomas de Seymour, and (2) Robert Peverel. That is what CP offers.
>
>
> DR says that he disagrees, but refuses to offer evidence to support his
> position.

Please don't misrepresent DR again. DR has consistently said that CED
needs to look at the evidence that Complete Peerage cites. The answer
lies in the lack of evidence, or its misapplication.

> I am ready to move on the next project and need a bit of time to
> prepare. Spending more time on DR's twist the argument and shift the
> burden process is a waste of my time.

This isn't a waste of time, CED. Doing the actual work will help you
understand how the research process works and how reliable Complete
Peerage is. That in itself will be more than worth your effort.

> CED

Best always, DR

[Rick Eaton]

I have made a discovery.

It would be far more gfracedful and dignified if combatants addressed each
o0ther in the first person, rather than the third person.

Were all to do that, it would have the effect of a reasonable debate and be
less personal in appearance. Also, this simple change in language would
leave those 9who chose to be) out of the maelstrom.

May I respectfully suggest that cons address the pros directly, and vice
versa.

Maalox sales will plummet.

Rick

"Rick Eaton" eaton...@sbcglobal.net

[Rick Eaton]

P.S.

I am writing from my hospital bed, on my laptop and under the influence,
they tell me, of chemo fog. Please forgive my awful typing.

In the above message, I should have made it clear that, when I said
"directly," it referre3d to messages that are posted to the list... As
opposed to those that are e-mailed desktop-to-desktop.

Rick

"Rick Eaton" eaton...@sbcglobal.net

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> My comments are interspersed. DR
>
> CED wrote:
> >
> > To the Newsgroup:
> >
> > DR claims that Alice de Lisle was not married to Robert Peverel; but
> > offers no evidence to back up that claim. The Complete Peerage, note
> > (i) on page 73 of volume VIII, states inter alia that Robert left a
> > daughter, Alice, wife of Thomas de Seymour, who appears afterwards to
> > have married Robert Peverel and to have died in 1349 (citing Cal. Inq.
> > p. m. etc.) After page 48 of volume VIII, there is a chart on which
> > Alice, daughter of Robert de Lisle, appears, showing two husbands:
> > (1)Thomas de Seymour, and (2) Robert Peverel. That is what CP offers.
> >
> >
> > DR says that he disagrees, but refuses to offer evidence to support his
> > position.
>
> Please don't misrepresent DR again. DR has consistently said that CED
> needs to look at the evidence that Complete Peerage cites. The answer
> lies in the lack of evidence, or its misapplication.

To the Newsgroup:

This posting of DR is most extraordinary.

Not once to my knowledge has DR posted such a statement in this tread.
If DR has posted such a statement in this thread, he should tell us
when and where.

In fact, the following excerpts from DR's postings prove to the
contrary:

From: "Douglas Richardson royalances...@msn.com"
<royalances...@msn.com>Date: 18 Aug 2005 23:18:37 -0700 Local: Fri, Aug
19 2005 1:18 am Subject: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of
Edmund Peverel

<snip>

"Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel did in fact have a sister named Alice de
Lisle. However, surviving records show conclusively that she married
Thomas Seymour, Knt., not Robert Peverel. As such, if the chart in
Complete Peerage 8:48 indicates that Alice de Lisle married Robert
Peverel, it is incorrect. "
<snip>

From: "Douglas Richardson royalances...@msn.com"
<royalances...@msn.com> Date: 19 Aug 2005 08:55:24 -0700 Local: Fri,
Aug 19 2005 10:55 am Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle,
wife of Edmund Peverel

<snip>
"Alice de Lisle did not marry Robert Peverel. She married Sir Thomas
Seymour. "

<snip>

DR has consistently stated that Robert Peverel was not a husband of
Alice de Lisle. Why is he changing his position now?

>
> > I am ready to move on the next project and need a bit of time to
> > prepare. Spending more time on DR's twist the argument and shift the
> > burden process is a waste of my time.
>
> This isn't a waste of time, CED. Doing the actual work will help you
> understand how the research process works and how reliable Complete
> Peerage is. That in itself will be more than worth your effort.

Before this posting he was telling me to take it up in private. Why
the change in attitude? As for how the research process works, he has
amply demonstrated that he either knows little of scholarly research
procedures or, if he does, he abuses them.

CED
>
> > CED
>
> Best always, DR

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Rick ~

Sorry to hear you're in the hospital. We'll keep you in our prayers
for renewed strength and health.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

[CED]

Rick Eaton wrote:
> P.S.
>
> I am writing from my hospital bed, on my laptop and under the influence,
> they tell me, of chemo fog. Please forgive my awful typing.
>
> In the above message, I should have made it clear that, when I said
> "directly," it referre3d to messages that are posted to the list... As
> opposed to those that are e-mailed desktop-to-desktop.

Rick:

I'm so sorry to hear of your situation. Hope you recover soon.

As for direct address: DR insists that, when I address him, I use his
given name, rather than his surname. Since he is not one of my
friends, I cannot honestly use the familiarity of a given name in
addressing him. That accounts for the indirect form of address.

CED

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Chris ~

Thank you for your good post.

As noted earlier in this thread, Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 73,
footnote i (sub Lisle) states that Alice de Lisle, daughter of Robert
de Lisle, Lord Lisle, married (1st) Sir Thomas Seymour and (2nd) Robert
Peverel. It further claims that Alice de Lisle died in 1349, citing as
its source the following:

Cal. Inq. p.m., vol. ix, no. 179.

The inquisition in question is the IPM of Alice, widow of Robert
Peverel, of Castle Ashby, Northamptonshire, and subsequently wife of
Thomas de Verdun. The writ for the inquisition is dated 5 May 1349.
Alice Peverel's heir at the time of her death was her grandson, John
Peverel, aged 19. John Peverel was the son of Alice's deceased son,
Edmund Peverel, and his wife, Elizabeth de Lisle.

The IPM of Alice (_____) (Peverel) de Verdun is followed immediately in
the published calendar by that of her minor grandson, John Peverel.
The writ for his inquisition is dated 24 November 1349. John Peverel's
heir was his sister, Margaret, wife of William de la Pole, Knt., she
being aged 18. Margaret (Peverel) de la Pole has living descendants.

Alice (_____) (Peverel) de Verdun (died 1349) is a completely different
person and much older than Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir Thomas de
Seymour, of Rode, Somerset (he died without issue 1358). Conflating
the two women into one person is a serious blunder on Complete
Peerage's part.

I know of no evidence whatsoever that Alice de Lisle married (2nd)
Robert Peverel. In any event, she certainly had no issue by her
Seymour marriage and obviously no known descendants. The Lisle chart
in C.P. 8:48 is in error to claim she had "descendants." C.P. is
correct to state, however, that Alice de Lisle's sister, Elizabeth (de
Lisle) Peverel, has descendants.

Interested parties can find further details on the Lisle, Peverel, and
de la Pole families in my new book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005).
Please contact me offlist for information regarding price and ordering
details.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear Chris ~
>
> Thank you for your good post.

To the Newsgroup:

Finally we get a version of the IPM. Would that DR had done this
earlier.

However, we have only DR's interpretation of the IPMs in question; and
we have only his statement that there was a conflation of two women
named Alice de Lisle. Even so, with DR's interpretation, more than one
conclusion is possible. Still too many unsupported assertions. The
proof is not there.

CED

>
> As noted earlier in this thread, Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 73,
> footnote i (sub Lisle) states that Alice de Lisle, daughter of Robert
> de Lisle, Lord Lisle, married (1st) Sir Thomas Seymour and (2nd) Robert
> Peverel. It further claims that Alice de Lisle died in 1349, citing as
> its source the following:
>
> Cal. Inq. p.m., vol. ix, no. 179.
>
> The inquisition in question is the IPM of Alice, widow of Robert
> Peverel, of Castle Ashby, Northamptonshire, and subsequently wife of
> Thomas de Verdun. The writ for the inquisition is dated 5 May 1349.
> Alice Peverel's heir at the time of her death was her grandson, John
> Peverel, aged 19. John Peverel was the son of Alice's deceased son,
> Edmund Peverel, and his wife, Elizabeth de Lisle.
>
> The IPM of Alice (_____) (Peverel) de Verdun is followed immediately in
> the published calendar by that of her minor grandson, John Peverel.
> The writ for his inquisition is dated 24 November 1349. John Peverel's
> heir was his sister, Margaret, wife of William de la Pole, Knt., she
> being aged 18. Margaret (Peverel) de la Pole has living descendants.
>
> Alice (_____) (Peverel) de Verdun (died 1349) is a completely different
> person and much older than Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir Thomas de
> Seymour, of Rode, Somerset (he died without issue 1358).

Where is the evidence of the conflation? Where is the evidence of the
difference in age ("much Older")?

CED

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

CED wrote:
>
> Where is the evidence of the conflation? Where is the evidence of the
> difference in age ("much Older")?

Alice (_____) (Peverel) de Verdun's son, Edmund Peverel, was born in
1306. Following her 1st husband, Robert Peverel's death in 1326, Alice
married (2nd) Thomas de Verdun. She died in 1349.

Alice (_____) (Peverel) de Verdun can not possibly be the same person
as Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir Thomas de Seymour (born ca. 1312, died
1358). The two women have separate and distinct histories. Also, as
we can readily see, Alice (_____) (Peverel) de Verdun is far older than
Alice (de Lisle) de Seymour.

The link between the two women is that Edmund Peveral, son of Alice
(_____) (Peverel) de Verdun, married Elizabeth de Lisle, sister of
Alice (de Lisle) de Seymour.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancesty.net

[Chris Phillips]

CED wrote:
> Finally we get a version of the IPM. Would that DR had done this
> earlier.
>
> However, we have only DR's interpretation of the IPMs in question; and
> we have only his statement that there was a conflation of two women
> named Alice de Lisle. Even so, with DR's interpretation, more than one
> conclusion is possible. Still too many unsupported assertions. The
> proof is not there.

Douglas Richardson's summary of the IPM jogged my memory and I've dug out my
old notes on Alice Peverel. It really is impossible for the Alice, widow of
Robert Peverel, who died in 1349 to be the same as the Alice de Lisle who
was the wife of Thomas de Seymour circa 1340 (CP cites Cal. Close Rolls
1339-41, p. 274).

It's clearly impossible for the Thomas Seymour who died in 1358 to be the
first of two husbands of a woman who died in 1349.

Nor can it be a different Thomas de Seymour, as Alice the widow of Robert
Peverel was already the wife of Thomas de Verdon by 1329, and he was still
alive, holding half a fee in [Castle] Ashby and Grendon, in 1346 [VCH vol.
4, p.233 - copy courtesy of Rosie Bevan].

So this is a definite blunder by CP.

Chris Phillips

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Chris ~

I concur completely.

Best wishes, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

[Tony Ingham]

Replies interspersed

John Brandon wrote:

> Oops, sorry, how embarrassing--I was thinking of another Tony.
>
>

Embarrassed? I doubt it.

> At least _that_ Tony didn't send an email last week to my private email
> address with only the following content: "YOU WANKER!!!"
>
>
The content of the PRIVATE email is as follows. Just so others on the
list can see that the above Australian term of endearment was not the
ONLY content

> Why dont you hold your breath and keep it held.
> I should have thought the resident smart-a[r]s[e] would be on to
> Peter's REAL name.
>
> You Wanker!!!
>
> John Brandon wrote:
>
>>>> Having an enjoyable lunch today with group members Peter Stewart
>>>> and Paul Mackenzie caused me to reflect on the benefits of
>>>> face-to-face communication.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you wouldn't mind giving 'Peter's' real name, then?
>>
>> (Not holding breath.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
Incidentally, to anyone who may read this, I sent a private reply to
Brandon's carte blanche Tony mailing in which I clarified exactly who I
am and where I am coming from.

> And this was at exactly the same time you were piously mouthing on the
> newsgroup about John Brandon doing nothing but "stirring shit up." You
> were doing exactly the same thing yourself.
>
>
Pious! Moi? Not stirring, just stating fact.

Any thing else I can help you with, John?

Tony Ingham

P.S. Talking about piety. Did I notice a bit of good ol' boy piety today?

[Lyn Wolf]

Dear Douglas and Chris

Thankyou very much for this. It is quite clear due to the
dates, that Alice Peverel was not Alice de Lisle.

The VCH Cambs Vol 4 is on-line at:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.asp?pubid=93

I hesitate to ask, after the previous row, how & where
would I be able to access IPMs, such as the one quoted
here? I do not have access to the Melbourne Library,
which is the closest at over 450km away.

Thanks again for sorting this out.

Lyn Wolf
Manangatang Vic Australia

From: "Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>

Douglas Richardson's summary of the IPM jogged my memory and I've dug
out my
old notes on Alice Peverel. It really is impossible for the Alice,
widow of
Robert Peverel, who died in 1349 to be the same as the Alice de Lisle
who
was the wife of Thomas de Seymour circa 1340 (CP cites Cal. Close
Rolls
1339-41, p. 274).

It's clearly impossible for the Thomas Seymour who died in 1358 to be
the
first of two husbands of a woman who died in 1349.

Nor can it be a different Thomas de Seymour, as Alice the widow of
Robert
Peverel was already the wife of Thomas de Verdon by 1329, and he was
still
alive, holding half a fee in [Castle] Ashby and Grendon, in 1346 [VCH
vol.
4, p.233 - copy courtesy of Rosie Bevan].

So this is a definite blunder by CP.

Chris Phillips

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[Chris Phillips]

Lyn Wolf wrote:
> I hesitate to ask, after the previous row, how & where
> would I be able to access IPMs, such as the one quoted
> here? I do not have access to the Melbourne Library,
> which is the closest at over 450km away.

I think a good library is still the only real option for the main series of
these. Even the Family History Library Catalog (Salt Lake City) lists only a
few editions of collections for particular counties (and some of the latter
are also available through ancestry.com's subscription service).

Chris Phillips

[Tony Ingham]

Brandon,

I dont make calculated attempts to improve anyone's impression of me,
nor uncalculated ones for that matter.

I suggest you consult several experts in Email transmission and ask how
you could receive a mailing of two words "You Wanker ! ! !" with both
the beginning (24 words) and the end (38 words) missing from the
transmission, which is neatly housed in the sender's SENT file.

Seeing you blocked my emails I will enclose the entire mailing.

Remember, this was in response to you sending a mail-out to all Tonys on
the list suggesting that they worked in Genealogical Libraries and are
"users" of the list info. whom you have helped out "Genealogically" in
times past .

I ask DCR to be tolerant of my including the paragraph pertaining to
him. I don't believe in selective quoting!

Email sent to John Brandon 10.45 a.m. 20 Aug 2005.

> John,
>
> You may be surprised to know that I am a retired 68 Y.O. pensioner .
> My wife and I live on a 6 acre property in the Central Victorian
> Goldfields. I travel some 400 kms round trip to do my research. The
> research day takes from 6.30 a.m. to 11.30.p.m.
>
> My main interest is the BARLEE or BARLEY families of Essex and Herts.
> Unfortunately, there are not many on the list (or elsewhere for that
> matter) who share my passion. Hopefully I can uncover all the reliable
> data on the Barlees and their ancestral families that is currently
> available before I leave this mortal coil. Then it is up to my brother
> and his son to (hopefully) carry on the work.
>
> If you have helped me "Genealogically" I thank you. Unfortunately a
> Hard Disk crash resulted in the loss of all my saved Emails from the
> last 15 years. Maybe you would care to remind me?
>
> John, I am definitely not a user as you define it. I've assisted many
> people off-list with my research material and am currently doing work
> for two people on families entirely unfamiliar to me.
>
> I apologise for bringing you into the mailing for DCR. I wasn't
> attempting to denigrate you in any way, merely using DCR's quote to
> poo-ha him a little.
>
> I have no axe to grind with you. I wish, though, that you wouldn't
> give DCR such unstinting support when you know his arguments are not
> supportable.
>
> As for DCR, I had hoped that RPA might, indeed, have been revised. But
> not so. Three lines in which I am interested have not been changed
> although I KNOW that Douglas has had access to the neccesary revisions
> since 2002.
>
> Hoping the above may give you some idea of where I'm coming from.
>
> All the best,
>
> Tony Ingham

John Brandon wrote:

>>Why dont you hold your breath and keep it held.
>>I should have thought the resident smart-a[r]s[e] >would be on to Peter's REAL name.
>>
>>You Wanker!!!
>>
>>
>
>

>Well, this is the first time I've seen that first part, but why you've
>added it is beyond me (it doesn't seem calculated to improve anyone's
>impression of you).

>
>
>
>>Incidentally, to anyone who may read this, I sent >a private reply to Brandon's carte blanche Tony >mailing in which I clarified exactly who I am and >where I am coming from.
>>
>>
>

>Naturally, I blocked your emails after being called a WANKER!!!!

>
>
>
>>P.S. Talking about piety. Did I notice a bit of >good ol' boy piety today?
>>
>>
>

>What does that even mean?
>
>
>
>