Another C.P. Addition - Elizabeth Owen, wife of Thomas Burgh the younger
Douglas Richardson
The authoritative Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 423 (sub Burgh) includes
a good account of the life of Sir Thomas Burgh, Knt., 3rd Lord Burgh
(died 1550). In this account, it is stated that he married twice,
first in 1496 to Anne Tyrwhitt, and (2nd) Alice London, widow
successively of Thomas Bedingfield, Knt. (died 1538) and Edmund
Rokewood. It is further stated in the text and a footnote that Lord
Burgh had three sons by his first marriage, namely Edward Burgh, Knt.
who died without issue before April 1533, Thomas Burgh, and William
Burgh, born about 1522 (aged 28 in 1550).
In footnote e on page 423, it is stated that Thomas Burgh, the second
son of Sir Thomas Burgh, 3rd Lord Burgh, left children "though born in
wedlock, [were] bastardized by Act of Parliament (1542-3) 34 Henry
VIII." Thus on his father, Sir Thomas Burgh, 3rd Lord Burgh's death
in 1550, Lord Burgh's heir was his third son, William Burgh, to the
exclusion of the issue of his second son, the younger Thomas Burgh..
The helpful online National Archives catalogue has an abstract of the
act whereby the children of the younger Thomas Burgh were
bastardized. This act is dated 34 & 35 Henry VIII, not 34 Henry VIII
as stated by Complete Peerage.
Source: National Archives Catalogue (http://
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp)
C 89/3/44
Record Summary
Scope and content
An act for Thomas Lord Burgh that Humfrey, Arthur and Margaret born of
Elizabeth Burgh who lived in adultery shall be deemed and taken to be
bastards and disabled Act: 34 & 35 Hen VIII c 40. END OF QUOTE.
A reference to the same act dated 34 and 35 Henry VIII is found in two
places in the A2A Catalogue at the following weblink:
Thus, it would appear that Lord Burgh requested his own son's children
to be bastardize, which request was granted by Parliament. The act
itself indicates that the wife of the younger Thomas Burgh was named
Elizabeth, and the names of the children so bastardized were named
Humphrey, Arthur, and Margaret. This information was ignored by
Complete Peerage.
The identity of Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Burgh the younger, is
indicated by other secondary sources. An account of the Burgh family
is found in Bernard Burke's A Genealogical History of the Dormant,
Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages (1866): 90 (sub Burgh). It
presents a different arrangement of the family than Complete Peerage.
In a nutshell, Burke confuses the history of Thomas Burgh the younger,
with that of his father, Sir Thomas Burgh, 3rd Lord Burgh.
As best I can determine, Burke indicates that the wife of Thomas Burgh
the younger was "Elizabeth, daughter of Sir David Owen, Knt." He
adds: "... but the lady proved faithless, and having children by
another person, his lordship obtained an act of parliament to
bastardize those children."
Actually Burke has this information slightly askew. As can be seen in
the abstract of the actual Act of Parliament copied above, Thomas
Burgh, 3rd Lord Burgh, did in fact request that the three children be
bastardized, but he is no where identified as the father of the
children In this instance, Complete Peerage appears to be correct in
identifying Lord Burgh as the grandfather of the children who were
bastardized, not the father.
As for Elizabeth Owen, she is mentioned in her father's will, she
being a daughter of Sir David Owen, of Midhurst, Sussex, which he had
by his 3rd wife, Anne Devereux. A copy of Sir David Owen's will is
published in Testamenta Vetusta, 2 (1826): 700–702, and may be viewed
at the following weblink:
Elsewhere, Sussex Archaeological Collections, 7 (1854): 22–43 includes
a good article on the will of Sir David Owen and on his immediate
family. This article may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=tkYJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA24&dq=David+Owen+Tudor#PPA22,M1
On page 36 of this article it is stated in a footnote that Elizabeth
Owen, daughter of Sir David Owen, "married Thomas Burgh, eldest son
and heir of Thomas Burgh, third Lord Burgh, 'but she breaking the
bonds of wedlock and having several children by some other person, he
obtained a special Act of Parliament, the 34th of Hen. VIII (1542-3)
to bastardise them.' Banks' Dorm. Peer. ii, 67 and Baronia Angl.
Concentrata, i, 142. Her husband died in 1552. See a legacy to Lady
Borough in the Schedule of this will. The executor, Lord Southampton,
calls her his cousin in his own will. Test. Vet. 709."
An abstract of the will of William Fitzwilliam, Lord Southampton, is
duly found as stated in Testamenta Vetusta, 2 (1826): 707–709. This
record may be viewed at the following weblink:
This will of Lord Southampton is dated 10 September 1542, probated 16
February 1542/3. Towards the end of his will, he leaves a bequest of
20 marks to his cousin, Elizabeth Burgh, wife of Thomas Burgh.
Thus, Elizabeth Owen, wife of Thomas Burgh, appears to have been
living as late as 10 September 1542.
Still yet another confused account of the Burgh family can also be
found in the source, A New and Complete History of the County of Kent,
3 (1829): 406, which information may be viewed at the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XqJJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA406&dq=Elizabeth+Owen+Burgh&lr=
It might be noted that Sir David Owen, the father of Elizabeth (Owen)
Burgh, was the illegitimate son of Owen Tudor, the grandfather of King
Henry VII of England. Thus, Elizabeth Owen was a near relation to
King Henry VIII of England.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
mj...@btinternet.com
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> The helpful online National Archives catalogue has an abstract of the
> act whereby the children of the younger Thomas Burgh were
> bastardized. This act is dated 34 & 35 Henry VIII, not 34 Henry VIII
> as stated by Complete Peerage.
Here we go again.
(1) The two references are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Evidently you don't understand how the process works. Where the
sittings of a particular Parliament cross the anniversary of the
monarch's accession, then two regnal years will be applied to them.
Hence, this was the Parliament of 1542, or of 34-35 Henry VIII. It is
common to cite Acts by reference to the session in which they were
enacted. This is why we see the reference to an Act of 34 & 35 Henry
VIII. The proper citation, after this fashion, for this Act (which,
for what it is worth, was a private act) is 34 & 35 Henry VIII c 40.
However, an Act will also (obviously) have an actual date when it was
passed. If the Act was passed during that portion of the sittings
that fell within the 34th year of the King's reign, it would be
entirely accurate to describe it as an act of 34 Henry VIII. Do you
know the actual date this Act received Royal Assent?
Please do try to learn what you are talking about before you
pontificate - or stop pontificating. You just embarrass yourself and
waste others' time in having to correct you.
(2) The Act did not "bastardize the children of the younger Thomas
Burgh". It recognized that they were *not* his children, that is,
that his wife Elizabeth had conceived and borne them in adultery.
> Source: National Archives Catalogue (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp)
> C 89/3/44
> Record Summary
> Scope and content
> An act for Thomas Lord Burgh that Humfrey, Arthur and Margaret born of
> Elizabeth Burgh who lived in adultery shall be deemed and taken to be
> bastards and disabled Act: 34 & 35 Hen VIII c 40. END OF QUOTE.
>
> A reference to the same act dated 34 and 35 Henry VIII is found in two
> places in the A2A Catalogue at the following weblink:
>
> http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/documentxsl.asp?com=1&i=7&nbKey=1&styles...A2A_com.xsl&keyword=Elizabeth%20NEAR3%20Burgh&properties=0601
>
> http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/documentxsl.asp?com=1&i=8&nbKey=1&styles...A2A_com.xsl&keyword=Elizabeth%20NEAR3%20Burgh&properties=0601
>
> Thus, it would appear that Lord Burgh requested his own son's children
> to be bastardize, which request was granted by Parliament. The act
> itself indicates that the wife of the younger Thomas Burgh was named
> Elizabeth, and the names of the children so bastardized were named
> Humphrey, Arthur, and Margaret. This information was ignored by
> Complete Peerage.
Rubbish, as usual. The children were not the children of the younger
Thomas Burgh; they were therefore not the grandchildren of Lord Burgh
or members of his family, and they had nothing to do with the peerage
which is the sole subject of the CP article in question. You should
reconsider the fundamental nature of CP's purpose: it charts the
passage of peerages; do you not understand that yet??? It does not
list peer's grandchildren (which these three were not, in any case)
and it certainly does not list the illegitimate children of a peer's
daughter-in-law. It is entirely appropriate and in keeping with its
raison d'etre that CP omitted their names.
> The identity of Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Burgh the younger, is
> indicated by other secondary sources. An account of the Burgh family
> is found in Bernard Burke's A Genealogical History of the Dormant,
> Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages (1866): 90 (sub Burgh). It
> presents a different arrangement of the family than Complete Peerage.
> In a nutshell, Burke confuses the history of Thomas Burgh the younger,
> with that of his father, Sir Thomas Burgh, 3rd Lord Burgh.
>
> As best I can determine, Burke indicates that the wife of Thomas Burgh
> the younger was "Elizabeth, daughter of Sir David Owen, Knt." He
> adds: "... but the lady proved faithless, and having children by
> another person, his lordship obtained an act of parliament to
> bastardize those children."
It is unclear why you should have had trouble in "determining" what
Burke is saying. He clearly states that Thomas, the son of Thomas 3rd
Lord Burgh, married Elizabeth the daughter of Sir David Owen. Where
he is confused is in stating that the younger Thomas survived his
father and became the 4th Baron, since the 3rd Baron's will makes it
clear that the younger Thomas died vita patris).
Here's a far earlier and better source, evidently used as the basis
for most of the third hand accounts you have tried (inadequately) to
deal with:
"This Thomas [3rd Lord Burgh]... had issue: Thomas, his son and heir
[sic], who married Elizabeth , daughter of Sir David Owen, knight, but
she breaking the bonds of wedlock, as it seems, had several children
begotten on her by some other person, whereupon he obtained a special
act of parliament in 34 H 8 for the bastardizing of them".
(Dugdale's Peerage, vol 3, London, 1676, p 289, citing Glover's
Collection and the Journal of Parliament; according to Dugdale the Act
of 34 Henry VIII is the primary authority for stating the identity of
Elizabeth's father).
Accordingly, CP's account remains both accurate and complete, needing
neither addition nor correction.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
> On 21 Apr, 07:53, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> > The helpful online National Archives catalogue has an abstract of the
> > act whereby the children of the younger Thomas Burgh were
> > bastardized. This act is dated 34 & 35 Henry VIII, not 34 Henry VIII
> > as stated by Complete Peerage.
On the British History online site, we can see the House of Lords'
Journal covering the three sessions of the Parliament of 1542:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=116
NB it is called the Parliament of 1542 because it first assembled in
1542. It was the 8th parliament of Henry VIII's reign, and actually
sat between 1542 and 1544.
According to the Lord's Journal, the Bill "to barr and make Bastards
the Children of Elizabeth Burghe" passed its third and final reading
in that House on 13 March 1542/3; presumably it received the Royal
Assent shortly thereafter. (A proper citation is 'Journal of the
House of Lords', vol 1, 1802, p 216.)
The 34th year of Henry VIII's reign was from 22 April 1542 until 21
April 1543 - see Chris Phillips's excellent calendar here:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cal/reg20.htm
Accordingly, the Act to illegitimate the putative grandchildren of
Lord Burgh was indeed enacted by Parliament in 34 Henry VIII, just as
CP states.
It may nevertheless be cited as 35 & 35 Henry VIII c 40 as the session
in which it was enacted continued from the 34th into the 35th year of
that King's reign.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
> It may nevertheless be cited as 35 & 35 Henry VIII c 40
Recte: 34 & 35 Henry VIII c 40, of course.
MA-R
Douglas Richardson
As a followup to my original post, I might add the following source, A
Treatise on the Law of Adulterine Bastardy (1836), written by the
esteemed Sir Harris Nicolas, which work discusses the bastardy of the
children of Thomas Burgh the younger. The relevant page in this
source may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YJADAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA60&dq=ELizabeth+Lady+Burgh
Sir Harris Nicolas specifically states an act was passed in Parliament
in 34 Henry VIII to bastardize the children of Lady Elizabeth Burgh,
the widow of Sir Thomas Burgh, eldest son of Sir Thomas Burgh. He
also states correctly that it was Thomas Burgh the elder, Lord Burgh,
who obtained the act of Parliament.
The abstracts which I cited of the act of Parliament in the National
Archives catalogue and the A2A Catalogue no where refer to Elizabeth
Burgh as "Lady Elizabeth Burgh," as does Sir Harris Nicolas. So, it
is not clear how he decided her husband, Thomas Burgh the younger, was
a knight. I note that she is styled "Lady Borough" in the undated
codicil to the will of her father, Sir David Owen (died 1542), as
shown in the article in Sussex Archaeological Collections, 7 (1854):
22–43. However, she is not addressed as lady, nor is her husband
Thomas Burgh styled "Sir" or "knight" in the 1542 will of her kinsman,
William Fitzwilliam, Lord Southampton. Lord Southampton's will may be
found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8-0KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA700&dq=Testamenta+Vetusta+David+owen#PPA707,M1
In fact, William Fitzwilliam's will is evidence that as late as 1542,
Elizabeth Owen was still married to Thomas Burgh the younger, as she
is called his wife, not his widow.
Indeed, it is doubtful that Thomas Burgh the younger was a knight in
1542, otherwise Lord Southampton would surely have noted that fact.
In the bequest immediately following the one he made to Elizabeth
Burgh, Lord Southampton specifically notes that the husband of his
next female legatee was a knight.
Moreover, if Complete Peerage has it facts correctly stated, Thomas
Burgh the younger was not the eldest son of Thomas Burgh, 3rd Lord
Burgh, as stated by Sir Harris Nicolas. Rather, he was the second son
of Lord Burgh, as stated in my original post.
Lastly, the A2A Catalogue dates the act of bastardization of the
children of Elizabeth Burgh as being in 35 Henry VIII, not 34 Henry
VIII as stated by Complete Peerage and Sir Nicholas Harris:
Source: A2A Catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp)
Reference: HL/PO/PB/1/1543/35H8
Private Act, 35 Henry VIII
Creation dates: 1543
An Act for Thomas Lord Burgh, and that Humfrey, Artbure and Margaret,
born of the Body of Elizabeth Burgh, who lived in Adultery, shall be
deemed and taken to be Bastards, and disabled to inherit. END OF
QUOTE.
This discrepancy in dates is unfortunate.
So while Sir Harris Nicolas has his basic facts correctly stated, he
muffs a couple of the minor points.
In summary, it appears that the second son of Thomas Burgh, 3rd Lord
Burgh (died 1550), was Thomas Burgh the younger. Evidence shows that
the younger Thomas married Elizabeth Owen, the daughter of Sir David
Owen, of Midhurst, Sussex and near kinswoman of King Henry VIII of
England. The said Elizabeth Owen allegedly had three children by
another man during the course of her marriage to Thomas Burgh the
younger, namely Humphrey, Arthur, and Margaret. The said three
children were bastardized by Act of Parliament in 1543 (as per the A2A
Catalogue) by their paternal grandfather, Thomas Burgh, 3rd Lord
Burgh. It remains to be seen exactly when Thomas Burgh the younger
died, or if he was a knight as alleged by Sir Harris Nicolas.
Douglas Richardson
There is further information on the act of Parliament involving the
bastardization of the children of Elizabeth Owen, wife of Thomas
Burgh, found in the following work, Report of the Proceedings of the
House of Lords on the Claims to the Barony of Gardner (1828) by Le
Marchant, page 472. It may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=rfsGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA472&dq=ELizabeth+Burgh+act+Parliament&lr=#PPR1,M1
This source doesn't use the regnal year for the act, rather it states
it was passed in 1542. This date, of course, contradicts the
authoritative A2A Catalogue which dates the act as being 1543.
The author states the said Elizabeth Burgh "had been the wife of Sir
Thomas Burgh, Knt., who died in the lifetime of his father, Thomas,
Lord Burgh."
Further details are added by the author:
"during the life of her husband she [Elizabeth] lived in adultury, not
regarding the company of her husband, and in that time she brought
forth three children, 'gotten by other persons than her said husband
during the espousals, ' etc. 'as she confessed.'"
Thus, it would appear that by her own confession, Elizabeth Owen had
more than one paramour during the time of her marriage to Thomas
Burgh. This evidence disagrees with statements in published secondary
works that indicate that Elizabeth Owen had her illegitimate children
by another person (singular). The question "Who's your daddy?" is
rather pertinent in this case it seems.
Douglas Richardson
There is further information on the act of Parliament which
bastardized the children of Elizabeth Burgh which is found in the
book, Baronia Anglica Concentrata, better known as Baronies in Fees,
by Sir T.C. Banks, volume 1 (1844), page 142. This material may be
found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=NvQ7AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA142&dq=ELizabeth+Burgh+act+Parliament&lr=
In this source, the author Banks quotes from the antiquarian, Dugdale,
who indicates that the children involved in the act were "described as
the children of Sir Thomas Borough, then deceased." Due to the
wording used by Banks, I assume that Dugdale was quoting from the
actual language of the act. If correct, the act itself should prove
that Elizabeth Owen's husband, Thomas Burgh the younger, was knighted
and that he was deceased at the date of the act.
If so, it is puzzling that the various abstracts of this act of
Parliament provided by the National Archives Catalogue and the A2A
Catalogue do not state that Elizabeth Burgh's husband was Sir Thomas
Burgh, then deceased.
Due to the conflicting statements in print, the only thing to do is to
examine the actual act of Parliament. Curiously, although the act is
mentioned by Complete Peerage, the published transcript of the act is
not cited as a source. This is still more puzzling.
Douglas Richardson
The book, The Dormant and Extinct Baronage of England, by T.C. Banks,
Volume 2 (1808), page 67 includes an abstract of the will of Sir
Thomas Burgh, 3rd Lord Burgh, who died in 1550. The will is dated 14
February 1549/50. In the will, the testator refers to his then wife,
Alice; his son and heir, Henry Burgh; his younger son, William Burgh;
his son, Sir Thomas Burgh, deceased; his daughter, Dorothy; and his
son-in-law, Sir Anthony Nevill, knight.
This material may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8TUvAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA67&dq=%22Sir+Thomas+Burgh%22&lr=
This will confirms that the testator's son, Thomas Burgh the younger,
was knighted. So that point is now established. Thomas Burgh the
younger is the one who married Elizabeth Owen.
However, the abstract of this will leads to yet another correction to
the Burgh account in Complete Peerage, as the will abstract states
that the testator's son and heir in Feb. 1540/50 was Henry Burgh, and
that the other son, William Burgh, was younger than Henry. Yet, four
months later when the inquisition of Lord Burgh was taken (June 1550),
it was William Burgh who succeeded his father as his heir.
If the will abstract is correct, however, it can only mean that
William Burgh was the 4th son of Sir Thomas Burgh, Lord Burgh, not the
3rd son as stated by Complete Peerage. Thus, at the time of his
death in 1550, Lord Burgh had been predeceaed by his three older sons,
namely Sir Edward, who died without issue before April 1533, Sir
Thomas Burgh the younger (the husband of Elizabeth Owen), who died
before 1543 (his wife's issue being bastardized), and Henry Burgh, who
was living at the date of his father's will in Feb. 1549/50.
It is odd that this point was missed by Complete Peerage, as it cites
the very will of Lord Burgh as a source in its text on the Burgh
family. However, it may be that the actual will fails to mention
Henry Burgh as stated by Banks (which is doubtful), or that Complete
Peerage consulted a faulty transcript of the will. Complete Peerage
also fails to mention the daughter, Dorothy, is its account. So
Dorothy is another new addition to Complete Peerage.
That an authority such as Complete Peerage should contains errors is
understandable. We all make mistakes.
mj...@btinternet.com
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> There is further information on the act of Parliament involving the
> bastardization of the children of Elizabeth Owen, wife of Thomas
> Burgh, found in the following work, Report of the Proceedings of the
> House of Lords on the Claims to the Barony of Gardner (1828) by Le
> Marchant, page 472. It may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
>
> This source doesn't use the regnal year for the act, rather it states
> it was passed in 1542. This date, of course, contradicts the
> authoritative A2A Catalogue which dates the act as being 1543.
I have cited the actual Act itself, the ultimate primary source, from
the relevant parliamentary journal.
Fumbling through tertiary sources from 1828 while ignoring the primary
source is a remarkable display from someone who wishes to be thought a
"scholar".
The bill was passed by the Lords on 13 March 1542/3. That can be
referred to as either 1542 or 1543. In any case, it is 34 Henry VIII,
not "34 & 35 Henry VIII" as you boldly asserting in your ignorance.
What part of this don't you understand?
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> There is further information on the act of Parliament which
> bastardized the children of Elizabeth Burgh which is found in the
> book, Baronia Anglica Concentrata, better known as Baronies in Fees,
> by Sir T.C. Banks, volume 1 (1844), page 142. This material may be
> found at the following weblink:
>
>
> In this source, the author Banks quotes from the antiquarian, Dugdale,
> who indicates that the children involved in the act were "described as
> the children of Sir Thomas Borough, then deceased." Due to the
> wording used by Banks, I assume that Dugdale was quoting from the
> actual language of the act.
Cherchez Dugdale - you are a professional researcher, are you not?
While you are at it, look up the reference in 'Baronage' that I gave
you to start with, and find out where the statement that Thomas the
younger was a knight really comes from.
And instead of googling for irrelevant tertiary sources, and wasting
bandwidth here by posting your pointless drivelling musings on the
subject, put your money where your mouth is and order Lord Burgh's
will from the PRO; it's at Prob 11/33, proved 24 November 1550.
Watching you stumble and bumble around on this is too embarrassing to
endure for much longer. Please put us out of your misery - and come
back when you've got a glimmering of what you're talking about, for
once.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
> Due to the conflicting statements in print, the only thing to do is to
> examine the actual act of Parliament. Curiously, although the act is
> mentioned by Complete Peerage, the published transcript of the act is
> not cited as a source. This is still more puzzling.
What published transcript of the act? It was a private act for a
single purpose, and as such is unlikely to have found its way into
many collections of printed legislation.
Puzzling though it may seem, some researchers actually rely on primary
documents, not on third-hand googled snippets.
You have the National Archives references; the sensible thing would be
to order copies of the original bills. No doubt you are a whiz at
reading Tudor court-hand. Then you can come back here and publish
your findings - we'll wait.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> The authoritative Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 423 (sub Burgh) includes
> a good account of the life of Sir Thomas Burgh, Knt., 3rd Lord Burgh
> (died 1550). In this account, it is stated that he married twice,
> first in 1496 to Anne Tyrwhitt, and (2nd) Alice London, widow
> successively of Thomas Bedingfield, Knt. (died 1538) and Edmund
> Rokewood.
For those interested, Alice's marriage to Edmund Rokewood of Euston
Hall, Suffolk, may be found detailed in the 'Visitations of Norfolk',
Harl. Soc. Pub. vol. XXXII, 1891, p 235. They are shown as having had
five sons and a daughter; it is this entry that records her maiden
name as "Alice London".
It seems that she received a life interest in Euston Hall after Edmund
Rokewood's death, since her later husband, Lord Burgh, was stated to
be "of Euston" at the time he made his will (pr 1550).
Her will of 1558 may be found abstracted in 'Testamenta Vetusta', p
746, although this abstract is taken from the summary in vol 3 of
Dugdale's Baronage which I cited earlier and does not contain a great
deal of additional information.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
> Moreover, if Complete Peerage has it facts correctly stated, Thomas
> Burgh the younger was not the eldest son of Thomas Burgh, 3rd Lord
> Burgh, as stated by Sir Harris Nicolas. Rather, he was the second son
> of Lord Burgh, as stated in my original post.
As stated by CP, you mean.
The identities of Lord Burgh's sons is well known. It is surprising
that "one of America's leading genealogists" (albeit self-styled)
needs to much assistance in catching up with established facts.
The eldest son of Thomas, 3rd Lord Burgh, by his first wife Anne
Tyrwhitt was Sir Edward Burgh. He is hardly unknown to history, since
he was the first husband of Katherine Parr, afterwards the sixth and
last Queen of Henry VIII. The ODNB article on Queen Katherine
(written by Susan E. James) states that their marriage took place in
about May 1529. Edward dates are given as "c1508-1529". As an
interesting aside, Lord Burgh, Katherine Parr's step-father, is
described as "an overbearing bully whose children lived in fear of his
temper"; James also notes that "insanity ran in the family" (Edward,
2nd Lord Burgh, the father of the 3rd Baron, was prevented from taking
his seat in the Lords on account of madness, a fact that has sometimes
led to the 3rd Baron's eventual summons being treated as a new
creation, hence his occasional style as 1st Lord Burgh). Sir Edward
Burgh died "shortly before April 1533"; there was no issue of this
marriage.
The next son was Sir Thomas Burgh, whose unfortunate marital history
is the main subject of this thread. After the death of his elder
brother Edward, Thomas became his father's heir. Sir Harris Nicolas
then - contrary to Douglas Richardson's assertion - was quite correct
in referring to Sir Thomas as the eldest son and heir, because this is
exactly what he was once Edward was dead without issue.
Then came William Burgh, who succeeded to the peerage on the death of
Lord Burgh in 1550. His line continued as Barons Burgh. Indeed,
despite Richardson's references to Burke's 'Extinct
and Dormant Peerage', the barony is a current title, having been
called out of abeyance in 1916. The present Lord Burgh was born in
1958, and succeeded his father in 2001.
There was a further son: Henry Burgh, who (according to Burke's)
married Elizabeth Constantine, lived at Stowe, Lincs, and had issue.
However, Dugdale (Baronage, vol III, p 289) says that Lord Burgh's
will (1550) calls Henry his "son and heir", implying that he was older
than William; he deduces that Henry must have died around the same
time as his father, since it was William who became Lord Burgh. If
Henry did marry and leave issue, then he must have been younger than
William, because William could not have succeeded unless all the issue
of his older brothers was extinct. The general consensus in the
literature is that Henry was the fourth son - but no doubt once
Douglas Richardson has seen the original of Lord Burgh's will, he will
be able to tell us what references to the sons it contains.
In addition, the 3rd Lord Burgh had several daughters, at least one of
whom (Dorothy) is named in his will, as is a son-in-law, Sir Anthony
Neville, according to the brief abstract provided by Dugdale.
A relatively good and accurate summary of the family's genealogy may
be found in Burke's Peerage, 107th edition, vol 1, p 587 et seq.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
> There was a further son: Henry Burgh, who (according to Burke's)
> married Elizabeth Constantine, lived at Stowe, Lincs, and had issue.
> However, Dugdale (Baronage, vol III, p 289) says that Lord Burgh's
> will (1550) calls Henry his "son and heir", implying that he was older
> than William; he deduces that Henry must have died around the same
> time as his father, since it was William who became Lord Burgh. If
> Henry did marry and leave issue, then he must have been younger than
> William, because William could not have succeeded unless all the issue
> of his older brothers was extinct.
In 1606, Henry Burgh's son and heir, Richard Burgh, advanced a claim
to the barony of Burgh following the death of his first cousin once
removed, Robert, 6th Lord Burgh, who was a child of about seven.
Richard claimed that he should have inherited the peerage as the male
heir, instead of it falling into abeyance between the four sisters of
the late 6th Baron. This claim failed; nevertheless it is good
primary evidence of the place of Henry Burgh as the fourth and
youngest son of Thomas, 3rd Lord Burgh [Restituta, Egerton Brydges,
1815, pp 345-346].
By the way, the will of Alice, Lady Burgh, is presumably that proved
at the Prerogative Court of Canterbury on 4 February 1558/9 [PROB
11/42A]. No doubt Douglas Richardson will add this to his shopping
cart and tell us what it says.
MA-R
Peter G R Howarth
so-called research. Particularly after the last week or so any normal
person would have realised the contempt in which he is held here and just
softly and silently vanished away. Yet he continues to post rubbish. Part
of it may be an ego-massage: note that he cannot let his research stand on
its own merits, but has to introduce it by pointing out, usually in a
condescending tone, how much better he is than X, or how he has improved on
Y, or managed to avoid Z's mistakes. And part of it could be to advertise
himself to gullible customers who might be taken in sufficiently to buy one
of his books.
But is that enough to make it worth his while to be (deservedly) ridiculed
by the genuine genealogists here? Or does he in fact get benefit from the
carefully reasoned responses to his unscholarly offerings? Are you doing
him a favour when you shoot him down in flames?
Since he is so fond of just repeating his silly "no sources, no weblinks"
whenever he has lost the argument, one possibility might be to respond to
all his postings with something along the lines of:-
GENEALOGICAL HEALTH WARNING
More often than not Douglas Richardson gets his research wrong.
Unfortunately, in the past, when his mistakes have been explained to him, he
has responded with rudeness, hypocrisy and lies. He has therefore forfeited
any right to such explanations.
DO NOT RELY ON THE INFORMATION IN HIS POST
On the other hand, I have learnt a lot from all the explanations and I must
admit to indulging in unhealthy amounts of Schadenfreude.
Peter G R Howarth
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mj...@btinternet.com [mailto:mj...@btinternet.com]
>Sent: 21 April 2008 11:33
>To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: Another C.P. Addition - Elizabeth Owen, wife of Thomas Burgh
>the younger
>
mj...@btinternet.com
> The eldest son of Thomas, 3rd Lord Burgh, by his first wife Anne
> Tyrwhitt was Sir Edward Burgh. He is hardly unknown to history, since
> he was the first husband of Katherine Parr, afterwards the sixth and
> last Queen of Henry VIII. The ODNB article on Queen Katherine
> (written by Susan E. James) states that their marriage took place in
> about May 1529. Edward dates are given as "c1508-1529".
Recte: "c1508-1533"
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
> The eldest son of Thomas, 3rd Lord Burgh, by his first wife Anne
> Tyrwhitt was Sir Edward Burgh. He is hardly unknown to history, since
> he was the first husband of Katherine Parr, afterwards the sixth and
> last Queen of Henry VIII. The ODNB article on Queen Katherine
> (written by Susan E. James) states that their marriage took place in
> about May 1529. Edward dates are given as "c1508-1529". As an
> interesting aside, Lord Burgh, Katherine Parr's step-father
Recte: "father-in-law"
butl...@aol.com
1. It appears that you were wrong on the act to bastardize the
children borne by Thomas' wife by other men. It is noted that you have
dropped that aspect and want to hound on the dates of the Act. How
contemptuous of you!
2. Whatever happened to Thomas' elder brother is of no material
value. He was the eldest, Thomas was the eldest (surviving son) and
heir (as regards the title, etc. at that time) but not THE eldest son.
For all Your Pontifications on correctness you fall poorly on this
one in trying to correct others errors or omissions and yet you make
them yourself.
3. Richardson correctly acknowledges his sources are secondary, it is
where many start before finding actual primary sources.
4. I do not find his postings as pontifical, more rather of musing or
in a rhetorical questioning fashion, therefor subject to personal
interpretation, how should one find your style of writing? Possibly
trolling? Maybe and yes, all of us are guilty of it either thru a post
hoping someone has more information or silently reading and adding
nothing to the fray it is trolling none-the-less. SO WHAT?! Since when
and who made you the grand master?!! That is his style of writing
possibly, many have accused me of being to wordy or digressing, big
deal, that is the way I write and I will not change it for anybody,
don' like it don't read it, but then again you may learn something.
Why in fact should anyone have to write and post so that it fits YOUR
style? Because Ma-r that is what you are demanding.
To correct or add to information is fine, but this crap and that is
exactly what it is, is a bunch of mob-mentality French peasants during
the revolution. So grow up and get on with good postings right or
wrong it is a start and remember, I promise you, You, I, and no-one
else in this group is someone special or above scrutiny.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
Peter Stewart
Then why are you trying to defend Richardson by special pleading? And
by a strawman argument as well - no-one has criticised the _style_ of
his posts, as you pretend, but rather _what_ he writes, i.e. his
sneering at others, his self-righteous hypocrisy and his incompetence.
Idiosyncracies of expression are not the problem.
One factor that appears to motivate Richardson's continuing to expose
himself to ridicule and censure here is a kind of faith in himself
that almost amounts to a personal cult, of which you are evidently one
of the few remaining votaries.
Richardson and his band of followers apparently imagine that he is a
prophet of Truth, and that whatever he says is the quintessence of
knowledge not on its own moral, logical or scholarly merits but simply
_because_ he has said it.
Since prophets are commonly supposed not to be honoured for their
delivery of revelation, even the most swingeing criticism will not
disturb their self-satisfied inner equanimity. Ask Warren Jeffs.
One or two of Richardson's coterie have had the sense to pull out of
the delusion, but they rarely find the gumption to speak out and help
others see through the fraud. More's the pity, they could perhaps be
the most effective prompters to turn into a useful contributor. Given
his industrial output in the subject, although currently a net
polluter of the genealogical environment, this would surely be
prefereable to his leaving the newsgroup altogether.
Peter Stewart
mj...@btinternet.com
> Good Evening Ma-R et al,
>
> 1. It appears that you were wrong on the act to bastardize the
> children borne by Thomas' wife by other men. It is noted that you have
> dropped that aspect and want to hound on the dates of the Act. How
> contemptuous of you!
Good morning Emmet
What are you talking about? I respectfully suggest you re-read the
posts. Perhaps you can then point out exactly what error I have made
in relation to the Act. The only reason I had "dropped it" is because
I believed I had established the facts in relation to it, and moved
on. I will be happy to be shown wrong, but just making a sweeping
allegation and a good dose of abuse while failing to state any
specifics is not terribly helpful.
> 2. Whatever happened to Thomas' elder brother is of no material
> value. He was the eldest, Thomas was the eldest (surviving son) and
> heir (as regards the title, etc. at that time) but not THE eldest son.
> For all Your Pontifications on correctness you fall poorly on this
> one in trying to correct others errors or omissions and yet you make
> them yourself.
Sorry; we'll have to disagree there. In terms of heirship,
differentiating between "eldest" and "eldest surviving" is splitting
heirs. It seems to me that Harris Nicolas's statement is perfectly in
order. You are free to take a different view.
> 3. Richardson correctly acknowledges his sources are secondary, it is
> where many start before finding actual primary sources.
Most of Richardson's sources are tertiary, not secondary - eg citing
Dugdale, who cites primary material. The primary material has been
put forward, yet Richardson still wants to focus on 19th century,
tertiary material. He is a trained researcher. If you believe that
the best way to grapple with a research problem is to ignore the
actual data, and spend time looking for what someone has said about
what someone else said about the data, then remind me not to spend
time reading any more of your posts.
> 4. I do not find his postings as pontifical, more rather of musing or
> in a rhetorical questioning fashion, therefor subject to personal
> interpretation, how should one find your style of writing? Possibly
> trolling? Maybe and yes, all of us are guilty of it either thru a post
> hoping someone has more information or silently reading and adding
> nothing to the fray it is trolling none-the-less. SO WHAT?! Since when
> and who made you the grand master?!! That is his style of writing
> possibly, many have accused me of being to wordy or digressing, big
> deal, that is the way I write and I will not change it for anybody,
> don' like it don't read it, but then again you may learn something.
> Why in fact should anyone have to write and post so that it fits YOUR
> style? Because Ma-r that is what you are demanding.
Emmett, it is hard to understand what you are trying to say in this
rambling paragraph. If you are unable to see the underlying flaws in
Richardson's research, then that's your problem. If you have failed
to notice his behaviour here, then that's your problem. And if you
think that the only issue I have with him is one of literary style,
then you have sadly missed the point entirely.
> To correct or add to information is fine, but this crap and that is
> exactly what it is, is a bunch of mob-mentality French peasants during
> the revolution. So grow up and get on with good postings right or
> wrong it is a start and remember, I promise you, You, I, and no-one
> else in this group is someone special or above scrutiny.
And yet you want to complain that Richardson is under scrutiny? Talk
about hypocrisy!
Kind regards, Michael
mj...@btinternet.com
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> There is further information on the act of Parliament which
> bastardized the children of Elizabeth Burgh which is found in the
> book, Baronia Anglica Concentrata, better known as Baronies in Fees,
> by Sir T.C. Banks, volume 1 (1844), page 142. This material may be
> found at the following weblink:
>
>
> In this source, the author Banks quotes from the antiquarian, Dugdale,
> who indicates that the children involved in the act were "described as
> the children of Sir Thomas Borough, then deceased." Due to the
> wording used by Banks, I assume that Dugdale was quoting from the
> actual language of the act. If correct, the act itself should prove
> that Elizabeth Owen's husband, Thomas Burgh the younger, was knighted
> and that he was deceased at the date of the act.
>
> If so, it is puzzling that the various abstracts of this act of
> Parliament provided by the National Archives Catalogue and the A2A
> Catalogue do not state that Elizabeth Burgh's husband was Sir Thomas
> Burgh, then deceased.
>
> Due to the conflicting statements in print, the only thing to do is to
> examine the actual act of Parliament. Curiously, although the act is
> mentioned by Complete Peerage, the published transcript of the act is
> not cited as a source. This is still more puzzling.
If I may intrude some original genealogical research into this, the
summary of the Act in 'Letters & Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII',
vol 18 pt 1 (1543), HMSO, London, 1901, p 46, #66 reads:
"That whereas Elizabeth Burgh, late wife of Thomas lord Burgh [sic]
lived in adultery during her husband's lifetime, and had children
Margaret, Humfrey and Arthur by persons other than her husband, as she
has partly confessed, these children are to be taken as bastards"
Further on (p 48, #67) we find the record of the printing of this Act:
"Printed copy of the Act 34-35 Henry VIII cap 40 declaring the three
children (named) of Elizabeth Burgh late wife of Sir Thomas Burgh
[sic], deceased, to be bastards - attested by Thomas Knight, clerk of
the Parliament, 8 February 35 [sic] Henry VIII". It is noted that a
manuscript copy of the Act may be found in the British Museum [now
Library] at Harl. MS 1243 f 289.
Meanwhile, vol 16 part 1 of the same series, covering 32 Henry VIII
[1540-1541] records a commission of sewers for Lincolnshire and
adjoining counties dated 11 September 1540, which includes both Lord
Burgh and Sir Thomas Burgh (p 52 # 107) and a commission of the peace
for Lincs to Lord Burgh and Sir Thomas on 26 November 1540 (p 143
#305).
Together this tells us that Sir Thomas Burgh was living in late 1540
but dead by 1542/3, thus narrowing down his death date considerably.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> The authoritative Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 423 (sub Burgh) includes
> a good account of the life of Sir Thomas Burgh, Knt., 3rd Lord Burgh
> (died 1550). In this account, it is stated that he married twice,
> first in 1496 to Anne Tyrwhitt, and (2nd) Alice London, widow
> successively of Thomas Bedingfield, Knt. (died 1538) and Edmund
> Rokewood.
Apologies again - I am going to intrude some more original
genealogical research here.
CP (New Edition) vol 2, 1912, p 423 does indeed state that the 3rd
Lord Burgh's second wife was Alice, widow of Edmund Rokewood and
"before that" of "Sir Thomas Bedingfeld (who died 1538)". Well done
to Douglas for having been able to copy this correctly.
It seems that a correction to the sequence of Alice's prior marriages
is actually in order at this point.
Other secondary sources indicate that Alice's married Edmund Rokewood
first, and then Sir Thomas Bedingfield - eg Blomfield's edition of
Parkin's 'Topographical History of Norfolk', vol VIII, London, 1808, p
288 which states that Alice, daughter of William London, married
Edmund Rokewode and was "wife afterwards of Sir Thomas Bedingfield of
Oxburgh, and of Lord Burgh" [this source adds that her "sister and
coheir" Margaret married Sir Edward Clere - presumably this is to be
read as Alice and Margaret being coheirs together, rather than
Margaret being a coheir of Alice, since we already know that Alice
left legitimate children by her Rokewood marriage].
Meanwhile, vol VI of Blomfield (published 1807) states that Sir Thomas
Bedingfield, son and heir of Sir Edmund Bedingfield, KB, by his second
wife Margaret Scot, married as *his* second wife "Alice, daughter of
William London esquire, relict [sic] of Edmund Rokewood of Euston,
afterwards wife to the Lord Burgh" (pedigree facing p 179), died
without issue, and was buried at Oxburgh on 13 March 1538 [sic].
This sequence of marriages, rather than that put forth by CP, appears
to be correct.
We find amongst the wills at the Consistory Court of Norwich that of
Edmund Rokewode of Euston, esquire, proved in 1524 [BRS pub, vol. 69,
London, 1945, p 313; register 148, 149 Briggs].
We also find in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury's probate index
the will of Sir Thomas Bedyngfelde [sic] of Oxburgh, Norfolk, knight,
proved 29 March 1539 [F 13 Crumwell; Prob 11/26].
Thus Alice London married (1) Edmund Rokewood (d 1524) and had five
children; (2) Sir Thomas Bedingfield (d 1538) without issue, and (3)
Thomas, 3rd Lord Burgh (d 1550); she died in 1558.
Regards, Michael
butl...@aol.com
Peter, I AM NOT a follower nor worshipper of Richardson or anyone else,
(you seem a bitter and cynical man) rather pointing out the general
flaws in every one, some more obvious than others, and MA-R, Michael,
you are free not to read my posts, the point I am trying to make is if
one were to come to this website, do a quick peruse, one would either
quickly unscubscribe or not come back at all... or if one did manage
to stay amongst you , more than not, and I have had some e-mail me
privately, as they are afraid to post basically for what seems on the
surface, real or imagined, personal attacks.
The sad thing about that is, who knows what information that person(s)
may have, that answers many questions that many of us have been
looking for, but because of the nature this site has become of late
are afraid to and will not.
Read this site as if you have never come across it before and you
would not waste much time here..a pity really, I have asked friends
here at the U of I to check out this site and they come away with the
same opinion, as all have something to add in whatever context it may
come across,... if you have an open mind.
Leo van de Pas
Gen-Med has been in a dreadful situation for several years and many great
contributors have departed, especially European ones. The main problem for a
long time was Spencer Hines who lately has been quiet, but almost from the
beginning of his participation Douglas Richardson has tried to dominate and
presented himself as the all knowing "benefactor" of Gen-Med. He cannot cope
with criticism and in the beginning criticism was directed at his material,
only later on has the criticism included his behaviour.
The sad part is that other people speak out and disapprove of those who
"dare" disagree with Richardson and were vocal about their disagreement. If
people would shrug their shoulders and not spell out the errors of
Richardson people would think that Richardson is correct "as nobody
disagrees with him". The result would be that mistakes in genealogy would be
bandied around and infiltrate the knowledge of people participating in
Gen-Med.
We are not a social group where the rule of "if you can't say anything nice,
don't say anything at all" should apply. "If you remain silent, you agree",
thank goodness seems to apply much more and several people speak out. It
seems to me appalling that it makes no difference to Richardson, he keeps on
behaving in the same manner. No wonder (thank goodness) that people now
watch his every message and, sadly, fault is found in about every one of his
messages.
You are correct that new people may be turned off, but what is the
alternative? Allowing third rate genealogy to become the norm? Just so that
the atmosphere is "pleasant" and conducive to have afternoon tea parties,
while genealogy (why we are here) suffers? I do not know.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1392 - Release Date: 4/22/2008
> 3:51 PM
>
>
AaronPa...@gmail.com
>
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Another C.P. Addition - Elizabeth Owen, wife of Thomas Burgh
> the younger
>
> > Good Afternoon Peter and MA-R et al,
>
> > Peter, I AM NOT a follower nor worshipper of Richardson or anyone else,
> > (you seem a bitter and cynical man) rather pointing out the general
> > flaws in every one, some more obvious than others, and MA-R, Michael,
> > you are free not to read my posts, the point I am trying to make is if
> > one were to come to this website, do a quick peruse, one would either
> > quickly unscubscribe or not come back at all... or if one did manage
> > to stay amongst you , more than not, and I have had some e-mail me
> > privately, as they are afraid to post basically for what seems on the
> > surface, real or imagined, personal attacks.
>
> > The sad thing about that is, who knows what information that person(s)
> > may have, that answers many questions that many of us have been
> > looking for, but because of the nature this site has become of late
> > are afraid to and will not.
>
> > Read this site as if you have never come across it before and you
> > would not waste much time here..a pity really, I have asked friends
> > here at the U of I to check out this site and they come away with the
> > same opinion, as all have something to add in whatever context it may
> > come across,... if you have an open mind.
>
> > Best Regards,
> > Emmett L. Butler
>
This is so much B.S.
There is a cadre of hypocrites at gen-med who attack newbies
And, they are systematically trying to destroy Douglas Richardson
If they would just shut up, and stop flaming him and others,
and just correct genealogy messages, EVERYTHING WOULD BE FINE
aaron
AaronPa...@gmail.com
THIS is a perfect example of a flame of Douglas Richardson
by Peter, and has NOTHING to do with gen-medieval
IT is typical of the cadre which includes MA-R, Leo, and Peter,
and has included others
IT should be clear to any reader that this cadre has taken gen-
medieval
to the trash heap and continues to trash a great message board
IT is THEY and no one else who has systematically destroyed this list
aaron
mj...@btinternet.com
Thanks Emmett - I understand where you are coming from, and I share
your concerns.
I do not agree with your analysis of the problem, however. I think
you will find that 'newcomers' are treated kindly on the whole. If
you read a number of recent threads, you will see that considerable
assistance is regularly offered to new posters who ask queries or
contribute what they already have with a view to adding to it.
It is true that this used to happen more often, and the advice given
was more expert. One of the reasons for the decline has been the
departure of several knowledgeable and helpful regulars, whose
departure has in some cases been prompted by the antics of posters
such as Douglas Richardson.
When I first lurked here, and during my initial period of posting, I
stayed well out of the debates which raged then as now. I have
gradually come to the understanding that if I ignore the bad genealogy
and faulty reasoning that posts such as his frquently contain, I am
complicit in reducing this group - which I value - to a state of
relative worthlessness. Whether or not you admire his style, much of
what Mr Richardson posts is wrong - muddled facts, illogical
conclusions, ill-thought out pronouncements. If this group is to be
full of mistakes and unreliable data, what's the point of it?
Furthermore, it is a community; I also greatly appreciate the large
number of collaborative relationships and valuable friendships that I
have been fortunate enough to meet with here. I have also, therefore,
gradually come to the conclusion that if this valuable sense of
community is to be maintained, it is not enough to turn a blind eye to
poor behaviour. Perhaps you have not noticed the ad hominem attacks
that Richardson launches when he is questioned, the childish put-
downs, the attempts to undermine other posters, the willful efforts to
pollute this group through cross-posting to infected sites, and the
like. I have noticed them, and I don't think they are acceptable.
So I stand up to the bad genealogy and the faulty logic and the
antisocial behaviour. I try to be logical and reasonable in doing so,
and I try to ensure that at the same time I am offering something
constructive in their place - eg offering rational interpretations,
solid facts and helpful suggestions. And I spend a fair amount of
time sharing my own research and helping others with theirs. I can
assure you I have lots of other things I could be doing with my time
other than correcting the many public errors of "one of America's
leading genealogists".
If you are unhappy with this, and think that Richardson should be left
to pollute this group and further encourage its decline, and post his
unreliable material on the internet for others to use without
appreciating its unreliability, then that's unfortunate.
I am disappointed to see that you have failed to back up your
assertion that I gave wrong information about the act of parliament of
1542/3, for which you accused me of being contemptuous. I would like
to think that if, in the middle of spending time criticising me for
offering valid criticisms of others, you chose to throw in some
personal abuse as you have done, you would have the courtesy to back
it up. I am always keen to learn from my errors and happy to enter
into discussion about them.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is so much B.S.
> There is a cadre of hypocrites at gen-med who attack newbies
> And, they are systematically trying to destroy Douglas Richardson
> If they would just shut up, and stop flaming him and others,
> and just correct genealogy messages, EVERYTHING WOULD BE FINE
>
> aaron
No, because you would still be posting wildly off-topic and abusive
material under fake names, Aaron/Bill/Fluff. You came here lecturing
and insulting everyone who tried to help you, and you waste everyone's
time with irrelevant posts and deliberate trolling. Please do not
confuse your experience with that of normal people who come here
looking for help or to contribute; they are very welcome.
No one is trying to "destroy" Douglas Richardson. Some of us are fed
up with his frequent antisocial behaviour, and keen for him to improve
his low levels of scholarship. It is strange that anyone (other than
Richardson) would take issue with that.
Unfortunately you have demonstrated to us time and time again that far
from disapproving, you endorse his standards and his attitudes. You
are part of the problem.
MA-R