William the Conqueror
Paul Smith
I think (hope) I've got an error. According to the following, 2. Geoffrey V
PLANTAGENET and 3. Mathilda Maude have the same parents which, of course,
makes them brother and sister as well as husband and wife. Somebody please
straighten me out!
Ancestors of Henry II 'Curtmantle' PLANTAGENET King of England - 23 Mar 1997
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST GENERATION
1. Henry II 'Curtmantle' PLANTAGENET King of England was born on 5 Mar 1133
in Le Mans, France. He died 6 Jul 11891189 in Chinon, France.
SECOND GENERATION
2. Geoffrey V PLANTAGENET Count d' Anjou was born in 1113 in Anjou, France.
He died in 1151. He was married to Mathilda Maude Empress of Eng in 1128.
3. Mathilda Maude Empress of Eng was born in Feb 1102 in Winchester. She
died on 10 Dec 1167/68 in Rouen.
THIRD GENERATION
4. Henry I Conqueror/King of England was born about 1068. He died on 1 Dec
1135 in St. Denis-le-Fermont near Rouen, Normandy, France. He was married to
Matilda CANMORE of Scotland on 11 Nov 1100.
5. Matilda CANMORE of Scotland died in May 1118 in Westminster Palace.
6. HENRY I King of Eng was born in 1068 in Selby, Eng. He died in 1135 in
Rouen, France.
7. Eadgyth MATILDA Queen of Scot was born in 1079. She died in 1118.
FOURTH GENERATION
8. William Duke of Normandy, Conqueror & King was born in 1027 in Falaise,
Normandy, France.
12. WILLIAM I King of Eng was born about 1028 in Normandy. He died in 1087
in Rouen, Normandy.
13. MATILDA "MAUD" of Flanders died in 1803.
14. MALCOLM III King of Scots was born in 1031 in Scotland. He died in 1093
in Alnwick. He was married to MARGARET Saint in 1069 in Dunfermling,
Scotland.
15. MARGARET Saint was born between 1043 and 1045 in Hungary. She died on 16
Nov 1093 in Scotland.
Take Care -- Paul
\\\ Paul....@110.conchbbs.com ///
\\\ Paul....@JUNO.Com ///
* Researching: *NC*: SMITH, BRITT, MORISS(S), RHODES * *VA*:
WHITE, TATE, SAUNDERS, HILL * *UK*: FOX, CROSHAW, WEST, BLOUNT,
JACOCKS
* CMPQwk 1.42 1830 * Posting from Copperfield, Houston, TX, USA
---
*Photons have mass? I d
* PDQWK 2.0~2 #48
--
|Fidonet: Paul Smith 1:106/110
|Internet: Paul....@110.conchbbs.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
James C. Woodard
Paul Smith <Paul....@110.conchbbs.com> wrote in article
<1e0_970...@conchbbs.com>...
Parents of Geofrey V Plantagenet are:
Fulk V, the Young b. 1092 d. 1142 m (2)Mesilende de Rethell d. 11 Sept.
1161
Parentss of the Empress Matilda are:
Henry I Beauclerc and Matilda of Scotland
Alan B. Wilson
In article <1e0_970...@conchbbs.com>, Paul....@110.conchbbs.com
(Paul Smith) wrote:
> I think (hope) I've got an error. According to the following, 2. Geoffrey V
> PLANTAGENET and 3. Mathilda Maude have the same parents which, of course,
> makes them brother and sister as well as husband and wife. Somebody please
> straighten me out!
>
You somehow went astray with the parentage of Geoffrey V
Plantagenet. This can be found in many standard references. For example:
Weis, Ancestral Roots, 7th ed., line 118; Europaische Stammtafeln ii, 82;
Moriarty, Plantagenet Ancestry, p. 2.
1 Henry II "Curt Mantel" of England King. Born 5 Mar 1132/1133 in Le
Mans, Sarthe, France. Died 8 Jul 1189 in Chinon, Indre-et-Loire, France.
Buried in Fontevrault Abbey in Anjou. King of England {1154-1189}. Duke
of Normandy, Count of Maine & Anjou.
2 Geoffrey V Plantagenet of Anjou Count. Born 24 Aug 1113 in Anjou,
France. Died 7 Sep 1151 in Le Mans, Maine. Count of Anjou. Duke of
Normandy.
3 Matilda of England Princess. Born 7 Feb 1102 in Winchester (Hants)
England. Died 10 Sep 1167 in Notre-Dame des Pres, Rouen, France.
4 Foulques V of Anjou Count. Born 1092. Died 13 Nov 1144 in Akkon
Jerusalem, Holy Land. Count of Anjou; King of Jerusalem.
5 Ermentrude \ Erembourge of Maine Countess. Born circa 1096. Died
1126. Heiress of Maine.
6 Henry I "Beauclerc" of England King. Born 1070 in Selby (Yorks)
England. Died 1 Dec 1135 in St Denis-le-, Fermont, Near Gisors. Buried in
Reading Abbey. King of England {1100-1135}. Duke of Normandy
{1100-1135}.
7 Matilda (Edith) of Scotland. Born 1079/1080 in Dunfermline (Fife)
Scotland. Died 1 May 1118 in Westminster Palace, London, England. Buried
in Westminster Abbey, London, England.
8 Foulques IV of Anjou Count. Born 1043. Died 14 Apr 1109. Count of Anjou.
9 Bertrade of Montfort. Born circa 1060. Died 14 Feb 1117 in Fontevrault.
10 Helie of la Fleche. Born circa 1065 in France. Died 11 Jul 1110.
Seigneur de la Flčche; Count of Maine.
11 Mathilde of Chateau du Loire. Born circa 1070 in France. Died Mar 1099.
12 William I "The Conqueror" King. Born 1027 in Falaise, Normandy,
France. Died 9 Sep 1087 in Priory of St. Gervais Near Rouen, France.
Buried in St Stephen Abbey, Caen, Normandy. King of England {1066-1087}.
Duke of Normandy.
13 Matilda of Flanders. Born circa 1032 in Flanders, France. Died 3 Nov
1083 in Caen, Calvedos, France. Buried in Holy Trinity, Abbey, Caen.
14 Malcolm III Canmore of Scotland King. Born circa 1031 in Scotland.
Died 13 Nov 1093 in Battle at Alnwick (Nthumb) England. King Of Scotland
{1058-1093}.
15 Margaret of England "St. Margaret". Born circa 1045 in Wessex,
England. Died 16 Nov 1093 in Edinburgh Castle (Lothian) Scotland. Queen
of Scotland.
--
Alan B. Wilson
abwi...@uclink2.berkeley.edu
Paul Smith
TO: ABWI...@UCLINK2.BERKELEY.EDU
A> You somehow went astray with the parentage of Geoffrey V
A> Plantagenet. This can be found in many standard references.
Thanks very much for your help Allan. I am pretty much house-bound with an
invalid mother and rely on wonderful people like yourself for much of my
information. Even more valuable than the information itself are the
references that you supplied. I wish all in the conference would do likewise
in their posts!
A> abwi...@uclink2.berkeley.edu
I recently relocated from Sacramento to Houston (after a previous relocation
from the South Bay to Sacto.). I miss it very much.
Thanks again and Good Hunting!
Take Care -- Paul
\\\ Paul....@110.conchbbs.com ///
\\\ Paul....@JUNO.Com ///
* Researching: *NC*: SMITH, BRITT, MORISS(S), RHODES * *VA*:
WHITE, TATE, SAUNDERS, HILL * *UK*: FOX, CROSHAW, WEST, BLOUNT,
JACOCKS
* CMPQwk 1.42 1830 * Posting from Copperfield, Houston, TX, USA
---
*Tried to play my shoeh
Paul Smith
TO: GWY...@GTE.NET
G> Parents of Geofrey V Plantagenet are:
G> Fulk V, the Young b. 1092 d. 1142 m (2)Mesilende de Rethell d. 11
G> Sept.
G> 1161
G> Parentss of the Empress Matilda are:
G> Henry I Beauclerc and Matilda of Scotland
Thanks very much James. One final question though; is BEAUCLERC a last name &
does it apply to Henry's father, g-father, etc.?
Take Care -- Paul
\\\ Paul....@110.conchbbs.com ///
\\\ Paul....@JUNO.Com ///
* Researching: *NC*: SMITH, BRITT, MORISS(S), RHODES * *VA*:
WHITE, TATE, SAUNDERS, HILL * *UK*: FOX, CROSHAW, WEST, BLOUNT,
JACOCKS
* CMPQwk 1.42 1830 * Posting from Copperfield, Houston, TX, USA
---
*Genius is perseverence
D DeFrank
Paul....@110.conchbbs.com (Paul Smith) wrote:
>G> Henry I Beauclerc and Matilda of Scotland
>Thanks very much James. One final question though; is BEAUCLERC a last name &
>does it apply to Henry's father, g-father, etc.?
BeauClerc simply meant "good administrator", a descriptive phrase
added to distinguish one Henry from another. e.g. William *Rufous*
(the red) distinguished him from William *the conquerer* his father.
Similarly in France, you have Charles "the Bald" and Louis "the Fat."
Deborah E. DeFrank
> \\\ Paul....@110.conchbbs.com ///
> \\\ Paul....@JUNO.Com ///
>* Researching: *NC*: SMITH, BRITT, MORISS(S), RHODES * *VA*:
>WHITE, TATE, SAUNDERS, HILL * *UK*: FOX, CROSHAW, WEST, BLOUNT,
>JACOCKS
>* CMPQwk 1.42 1830 * Posting from Copperfield, Houston, TX, USA
>---
>*Genius is perseverence
> * PDQWK 2.0~2 #48
>--
>|Fidonet: Paul Smith 1:106/110
>|Internet: Paul....@110.conchbbs.com
>|
>| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
-------------------------
spamfoil added to address.
remove * to reply.
-------------------------
Todd A. Farmerie
Paul Smith wrote:
>
> TO: GWY...@GTE.NET
>
> G> Parents of Geofrey V Plantagenet are:
>
> G> Fulk V, the Young b. 1092 d. 1142 m (2)Mesilende de Rethell d. 11
> G> Sept.
> G> 1161
>
> G> Parentss of the Empress Matilda are:
>
> Thanks very much James. One final question though; is BEAUCLERC a last name &
> does it apply to Henry's father, g-father, etc.?
No, it was a nickname, specific to him (but then so was Plantagenet,
specific to Geoffrey, but assigned by later historian to the entire
family).
taf
Richard Barney
come from Fulk V? Also have William Malet b.1150 Baron of Cory Malet m.Maud
Mortimer and their daughter, Hawise, m. Hugh Poyntz. My line comes frm alot of
Prideauxs'--Poyntzs'. a daughter, Elizabeth Prideaux, married one Robert
Drake about 1540's or so. (could ask how Pons Fitzsimon b.about1100 had a
son by the name of Nicholas Poyntz)
Richard Barney
>
>
Alan B. Wilson
On 26 Mar 1997 D. Spencer Hines <shi...@worldnet.att.net>
(by direct e-mail to me) wrote:
>At 06:47 PM 3/24/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>Your three generation Ahnenlist for Henry II, King of England.
>
>>
>> 1 Henry II "Curt Mantel" of England King. Born 5 Mar 1132/1133 in Le
>>Mans, Sarthe, France. Died 8 Jul 1189 in Chinon, Indre-et-Loire, France.
>>Buried in Fontevrault Abbey in Anjou. King of England {1154-1189}. Duke
>>of Normandy, Count of Maine & Anjou.
>
><snip>
>
>Could I prevail upon you to post the next, fourth generation, as well? The
>first three were of high quality---perhaps the fifth, if available, even
>if incomplete?
>
>Thank You. My guess is that the newsgroup would be interested also. If you
>do not concur, could you kindly e-mail it to me?
>
>
Thanks for the kind words. My post was supposed to have
been four generations (counting Henry II as generation #1).
Here is a fifth generation. All but Sybilla, #29--at least the
names--may be found one place or another in Europaische
Stammtafeln and other sources. Sybilla was reported by Michael
R. Davidson in his "Genealogy of the early medieval Scottish
kings," posted to soc.genealogy.medieval 23 Oct 1995, to be a
relative of Earl Siward of Northumbria. See also Stuart,
Royalty for Commoners, 165:32.
16 Geoffrey II Ferreol of Gatinais Count. Born
circa 1000. Died 1 Apr 1046. Count of Gatinais.
17 Ermengarde of Anjou. Born circa 1018. Died 18
Mar 1076 in Fleury-sur-Ouche.
18 Simon of Montfort. Born circa 1026 in Montfort,
Normandy. Died circa 1087. Buried in Epernon, Normandy.
19 Agnes of Evreux. Born circa 1030 in Normandy.
20 Jean of la Fleche. Died before 1098. Buried in
Saint Aubin d'Angers. Seigneur de la Fleche. Seigneur de
Lancelin de Baugency.
21 Paula du Maine. Born circa 1030.
22 Gervais of Chateau du Loire seigneur. Died circa 1095.
23 Eremburge.
24 Robert I "the Devil" of Normandy Duke. Born
circa 999 in Normandy. Died 22 Jul 1035 in Nicea, Bithnia
[Turkey]. Duke of Normandy.
25 Herleva \ Harlette of Falaise. Born circa 1003.
Died circa 1050. Buried in Grestain.
26 Baldwin V of Lille Count. Born circa 1013 in
Flanders, France. Died 1 Sep 1067 in Lille, France. Buried in
Lille. Count of Flanders.
27 Adelaide (Aelis) of France Princess. Born circa
1009. Died 8 Jan 1079 in Messines. Buried in Messines.
28 Duncan I (Donnchad mac Crinan). Born circa 1001
in Scotland. Slain 14 Aug 1040 in Moray, Scotland.
29 Sybilla.
30 Edward "the Atheling" of England Prince. Born
about 1016 in Wessex, England. Died circa 1057 in London. Exiled
to Hungary.
31 Agatha von Braunschweig. Born circa 1025 in
Bavaria, Germany. Died after 1066.
I'm aware of the questions recently raised again about the
identity of #31, the wife of Edward "the Atheling," but this is
what I still have in my file pending a compelling reason to
revise.
D. Spencer Hines
Alan B. Wilson wrote:
<snip>
> Thanks for the kind words. My post was supposed to have
> been four generations (counting Henry II as generation #1).
> Here is a fifth generation.
De nada. Most helpful indeed. Thank you kindly. I realize the next prior
generation would have 64 slots, if not necessarily 64 individual
persons. You probably have only some of them. But, could you be so kind
as to post the ones you have? There is some method to my madness here.
["Though this be madness, yet there is method in't." Hamlet Act II,
Scene ii, Line 211]
Henry II "The Lion in Winter" would undoubtedly love all the attention
he gets nowadays. He certainly got little respect from his three sons.
Perhaps Rosamond Clifford, who was reportedly his lover from 1166 to her
death in 1177, [contrary to the previously expressed opinions of Walter
Lee Sheppard, Todd A. Farmerie and Stewart Baldwin] would probably glory
in it too.
--
D. Spencer Hines "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is
fast enough." ***** Theodore Roosevelt ***** (1888)
D. Spencer Hines
Vickie (Elam) White wrote:
>
> D. Spencer Hines wrote --
>
> <<Henry II "The Lion in Winter" would undoubtedly love all the attention
> he gets nowadays. He certainly got little respect from his three sons.
> Perhaps Rosamond Clifford, who was reportedly his lover from 1166 to her
> death in 1177, [contrary to the previously expressed opinions of Walter
> Lee Sheppard, Todd A. Farmerie and Stewart Baldwin] would probably glory
> in it too.>>
>
> it was the claim that she was the mother of Williaim LONGESPEE that was
> in dispute.
>
> Vickie (Elam) White
> 10265...@compuserve.com
Please read precisely what I wrote. The words speak clearly for
themselves---if read closely. Actually, other issues were in dispute,
rather than the one you call out---and they were of more immediate
critical importance as well. The relevant posts are all archived in Deja
News.
D. Spencer Hines
My previous post was in error with respect to the number of "slots" in
the next generation of Henry II's ancestors. Alan B. Wilson has kindly
shown us the ancestors up through Henry's 2nd Great-Grandparents. So,
the next prior generation, that of Henry's 3rd Great-Grandparents would,
of course, have 32 "slots" not 64.
Vickie (Elam) White
D. Spencer Hines wrote --
<<Henry II "The Lion in Winter" would undoubtedly love all the attention
he gets nowadays. He certainly got little respect from his three sons.
Perhaps Rosamond Clifford, who was reportedly his lover from 1166 to her
death in 1177, [contrary to the previously expressed opinions of Walter
Lee Sheppard, Todd A. Farmerie and Stewart Baldwin] would probably glory
in it too.>>
I don't recall anyone claiming that Rosamond was not Henry's lover. Rather,
Alan B. Wilson
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 D. Spencer Hines
<shi...@worldnet.att.net> asked for yet another generation of
the ancestry of Henry II. He wrote, in part:
> You probably have only some of them. But, could you be so kind
>as to post the ones you have? There is some method to my madness here.
>["Though this be madness, yet there is method in't." Hamlet Act II,
>Scene ii, Line 211]
>
The hidden agenda gives me unease. If this is a "cat and
mouse" game, I should prefer not to play the mouse. However, I
participate in this forum in hopes of occasionally learning
something, correcting what I think I have learned, and
reciprocating where I may. So, with apprehension, I'll comply.
Because this ancestry of Henry II is becoming fragmented,
I'll post the whole. Please forgive the redundancy.
1 Henry II "Curt Mantel" of England King. Born 5
Mar 1132/1133 in Le Mans, Sarthe, France. Died 8 Jul 1189 in
Chinon, Indre-et-Loire, France. Buried in Fontevrault Abbey in
Anjou. King of England {1154-1189}. Duke of Normandy, Count of
Maine & Anjou.
2 Geoffrey V Plantagenet of Anjou Count. Born 24
Aug 1113 in Anjou, France. Died 7 Sep 1151 in Le Mans, Maine.
Count of Anjou. Duke of Normandy.
3 Matilda of England Princess. Born 7 Feb 1102 in
Winchester (Hants) England. Died 10 Sep 1167 in Notre-Dame des
Pres, Rouen, France.
4 Foulques V of Anjou Count. Born 1092. Died 13
Nov 1144 in Akkon Jerusalem, Holy Land. Count of Anjou; King of
Jerusalem.
5 Ermentrude \ Erembourge of Maine Countess. Born
circa 1096. Died 1126. Heiress of Maine.
6 Henry I "Beauclerc" of England King. Born 1070
in Selby (Yorks) England. Died 1 Dec 1135 in St Denis-le-,
Fermont, near Gisors. Buried in Reading Abbey. King of England
{1100-1135}. Duke of Normandy {1100-1135}.
7 Matilda (Edith) of Scotland. Born 1079/1080 in
Dunfermline (Fife) Scotland. Died 1 May 1118 in Westminster
Palace, London, England. Buried in Westminster Abbey, London,
England.
8 Foulques IV of Anjou Count. Born 1043. Died 14
Apr 1109. Count of Anjou.
9 Bertrade of Montfort. Born circa 1060. Died 14
Feb 1117 in Fontevrault.
10 Helie of la Fleche. Born Circa 1065 in France.
Died 11 Jul 1110. Seigneur of la Fleche; Count of Maine.
11 Mathilde of Chateau du Loire. Born circa 1070 in
France. Died Mar 1099.
12 William I "The Conqueror" King. Born 1027 in
Falaise, Normandy, France. Died 9 Sep 1087 in Priory of St.
Gervais near Rouen, France. Buried in St Stephen Abbey, Caen,
Normandy. King of England {1066-1087}. Duke of Normandy.
13 Matilda of Flanders. Born circa 1032 in
Flanders, France. Died 3 Nov 1083 in Caen, Calvedos, France.
Buried in Holy Trinity, Abbey, Caen.
14 Malcolm III "Canmore" of Scotland King. Born
circa 1031 in Scotland. Died 13 Nov 1093 in battle at Alnwick
(Nthumb) England. King Of Scotland {1058-1093}.
15 Margaret of England "St. Margaret". Born circa
1045 in Wessex, England. Died 16 Nov 1093 in Edinburgh Castle
(Lothian) Scotland. Queen of Scotland.
16 Geoffrey II Ferreol of Gatinais Count. Born
circa 1000. Died 1 Apr 1046. Count of Gatinais.
17 Ermengarde of Anjou. Born circa 1018. Died 18
Mar 1076 in Fleury-sur-Ouche.
18 Simon of Montfort. Born circa 1026 in Montfort,
Normandy. Died circa 1087. Buried in Epernon, Normandy.
19 Agnes of Evreux. Born circa 1030 in Normandy.
20 Jean of la Fleche. Died before 1098. Buried in
Saint Aubin d'Angers. Seigneur of la Fleche. Seigneur of
Lancelin de Baugency.
21 Paula of Maine. Born circa 1030.
22 Gervais of Chateau du Loire seigneur. Died circa 1095.
23 Eremburge.
24 Robert I "the Devil" of Normandy Duke. Born
circa 999 in Normandy. Died 22 Jul 1035 in Nicea, Bithnia
[Turkey]. Duke of Normandy.
25 Herleva \ Harlette of Falaise. Born circa 1003.
Died circa 1050. Buried in Grestain.
26 Baldwin V of Lille. Born circa 1013 in Flanders,
France. Died 1 Sep 1067 in Lille, France. Buried in Lille.
Count of Flanders.
27 Adelaide (Aelis) of France Princess. Born circa
1009. Died 8 Jan 1079 in Messines. Buried in Messines.
28 Duncan I (Donnchad mac Crinan). Born circa 1001
in Scotland. Slain 14 Aug 1040 in Moray, Scotland.
29 Sybilla.
30 Edward "the Atheling" of England Prince. Born
about 1016 in Wessex, England. Died circa 1057 in London. Exiled
to Hungary.
31 Agatha of Braunschweig. Born circa 1025 in
Bavaria, Germany. Died After 1066.
32 Geoffrey I "Ferreol" of Gatenois Count. Born
circa 970. Died 1000. Count of Gatenois.
33 Beatrix of Macon. Born circa 974. Of Bourgogne, France.
34 Foulques III "Nerra" of Anjou Count. Born circa
970/971. Died 21 Jun 1040 in Metz, France. Count of Anjou
{986-}.
35 Hildegarde of Lotharingia. Born circa 964/974 in
France. Died 1 Apr 1046 in Jerusalem, Holy Land.
36 Amauri of Montfort. Born circa 994. Died 1053.
37 Bertrade of Gommetz. Born circa 998 in France.
38 Richard of Evreux Count. Born circa 986. Of
Rouen, S-Infr, France. Died 13 Dec 1067. Count of Evreux.
39 Adelaide of Barcelona. Born circa 1004. Of
Normandy. Died 1051.
40 Lanzelin I of Baugency. Died before 1060.
Seigneur of la Fleche. Seigneur of Baugency in the Orleansois.
42 Herbert of Maine Count. Born circa 990. Died 13
Apr 1036. Count of Maine.
44 Robert of Chateau du Loire seigneur.
45 Elizabeth. Died circa 1095.
48 Richard II "the Good" of Normandy Duke. Born
circa 958 in Normandy. Died 28 Aug 1027 in Fecamp. Duke of
Normandy.
49 Judith of Rennes (Brittany). Born 982 in
Bretagne. Died 16 Jun 1017.
50 Fulbert of Falaise. Born circa 970.
51 Doda. Born circa 974. Of Falaise, France.
52 Baldwin IV of Lille. Born circa 980 in Flanders.
Died 30 May 1035. Count of Valenciennes and Flanders.
53 Ogive (Otgiva) of Luxemburg. Born circa 995 in
Luxemburg. Died 21 Feb 1029/1030.
54 Robert II "the Pious" of France King. Born 27
Mar 972 in Orleans, France. Died 20 Jul 1031 in Meulan, France.
Buried in St. Denis. King of France {988-1031}.
55 Constance of Arles (Toulouse). Born circa 986.
Died 25 Jul 1032 in Meulan. Buried in St. Denis.
56 Crinan. Born circa 975 in Scotland. Slain 1045.
Abbot of Dunkeld.
57 Bethoc of Scotland Princess. Born circa 984 in Scotland.
60 Edmund II "Ironside" of England King. Born 989
in Wessex, England. Died 30 Nov 1016 in London (London) England.
Buried in Glastonbury (Somset) England.
61 Ealdgyth. Born circa 986. Of Wessex, England.
62 Ludwig\Ludolf of Braunschweig Margrave. Born
circa 1008. Died 1078. Count in the Derlingo. Margrave of West
Friesland.
63 Gertrude of Egisheim. Born circa 1005. Died 21 Jul 1077.
D. Spencer Hines
Alan B. Wilson wrote:
>
> The hidden agenda gives me unease. If this is a "cat and
> mouse" game, I should prefer not to play the mouse. However, I
> participate in this forum in hopes of occasionally learning
> something, correcting what I think I have learned, and
> reciprocating where I may. So, with apprehension, I'll comply.
>
> Because this ancestry of Henry II is becoming fragmented,
> I'll post the whole. Please forgive the redundancy.
>
Thank you for your kindness, your confidence, your good sense and your
gravitas. Your confidence is not misplaced. There is no "cat and mouse
game" here. The redundancy is not a problem. It's good to have "Henry
II's First Five" all in one piece.
Stewart Baldwin
>Vickie (Elam) White wrote:
>>
>> D. Spencer Hines wrote --
>>
>> <<Henry II "The Lion in Winter" would undoubtedly love all the attention
>> he gets nowadays. He certainly got little respect from his three sons.
>> Perhaps Rosamond Clifford, who was reportedly his lover from 1166 to her
>> death in 1177, [contrary to the previously expressed opinions of Walter
>> Lee Sheppard, Todd A. Farmerie and Stewart Baldwin] would probably glory
>> in it too.>>
>>
>Rather,
>> it was the claim that she was the mother of Williaim LONGESPEE that was
>> in dispute.
>>
>> Vickie (Elam) White
>> 10265...@compuserve.com
>
>themselves---if read closely. Actually, other issues were in dispute,
>rather than the one you call out---and they were of more immediate
>critical importance as well. The relevant posts are all archived in Deja
>News.
>
>D. Spencer Hines "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is
>fast enough." ***** Theodore Roosevelt ***** (1888)
I was rather surprised to find out about the above opinion which I had
supposedly expressed. In fact, I recall posting only one item to this
newsgroup (other than this one) in which Rosamund was mentioned, and I
offered no opinion regarding the interval of time during which she was
Henry's mistress. In that posting, I did point out the
inappropriateness of your previous personal attack against Walter Lee
Sheppard, but I did not state whether or not I agreed with his
comments, and any "reading between the lines" which you may have done
on that occasion does not constitute a statement by me. With that in
mind, it might be appropriate for you to play close attention to the
following words:
Please read precisely what I wrote. The words speak clearly for
themselves---if read closely. Actually, other issues were in dispute,
rather than the one you call out---and they were of more immediate
critical importance as well. The relevant posts are all archived in
Deja News.
Stewart Baldwin
William Addams Reitwiesner
"Vickie (Elam) White" <10265...@COMPUSERVE.COM> wrote:
>D. Spencer Hines wrote --
>
><<Henry II "The Lion in Winter" would undoubtedly love all the attention
>he gets nowadays. He certainly got little respect from his three sons.
>Perhaps Rosamond Clifford, who was reportedly his lover from 1166 to her
>death in 1177, [contrary to the previously expressed opinions of Walter
>Lee Sheppard, Todd A. Farmerie and Stewart Baldwin] would probably glory
>in it too.>>
>
>I don't recall anyone claiming that Rosamond was not Henry's lover. Rather,
>it was the claim that she was the mother of Williaim LONGESPEE that was
>in dispute.
That's also what I recall.
By the way, "The Lion in Winter" is a novel by James Goldman, and
shouldn't be used as a historical or genealogical reference. Case in
point: Henry II had *five*, not three (legitimate) sons.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
D. Spencer Hines
At 10:02 PM 3/27/97 +0000, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>
>I was rather surprised to find out about the above opinion which I had
>supposedly expressed. In fact, I recall posting only one item to this
>newsgroup (other than this one) in which Rosamund was mentioned, and I
>offered no opinion regarding the interval of time during which she was
>Henry's mistress. In that posting, I did point out the
>inappropriateness of your previous personal attack against Walter Lee
>Sheppard, but I did not state whether or not I agreed with his
>comments, and any "reading between the lines" which you may have done
>on that occasion does not constitute a statement by me. With that in
>mind, it might be appropriate for you to play close attention to the
>following words:
>
>Please read precisely what I wrote. The words speak clearly for
>themselves---if read closely. Actually, other issues were in dispute,
>rather than the one you call out---and they were of more immediate
>critical importance as well. The relevant posts are all archived in
>Deja News.
>
>Stewart Baldwin
>
You continue trying to butter both sides of your bread and, of course, it
gets you in trouble. You have clearly taken a previous position that my
challenges to Todd A. Farmerie and Walter Lee Sheppard were inappropriate
and incorrect. You refer confidently and with absolute certitude to
alleged 13th Century documents, which you do not prove to us that you have
even sighted, let alone studied, in the following terms:
"...using contemporary evidence of very high quality (a statement by
William himself regarding the identity of his mother), and in fact had
outlined that proof in this newsgroup long before you wrote the above
comment."
[You end with a complete non-sequitur. By the same token, "outlining a
proof" is not proving something---by any leap of the imagination.
In summary, you seem to have an incredibly distorted view of the concept of
burden of proof in History, Law and Genealogy---such that I find it
difficult to believe that you are a serious scholar and actually a
professor at an institute of higher learning in the United States. Perhaps
you are not, but a staff administrative person or graduate student. You
have never claimed to be a professor, in anything I have read, originated
by you---but you certainly consistently have tried to leave that strong
impression, on numerous occasions---as well as your using the Bas Academic
Style of High Dudgeon and Higher Certitude.
I rebutted your very disingenuous, non-responsive and illogical message
on
Rurik, to which you have not responded, to date. When you deal with the
Kings of Norway and similar subjects, in the same field, your quality of
thought and writing is generally quite high and I appreciate your efforts,
which makes it all the more remarkable that your other offerings are so
poorly planned and executed. Perhaps you spin them off as
entertainments---and the quality control and reality check levers are not
fully engaged.
If you have any confidence and courage in your logical and scholarly
abilities you will respond to my Rurik message, where I posted it----on
GEN-MEDIEVAL. I gave you the courtesy of a candid and forthright response.
Please deal directly with the issues I raised in that post and do not
attempt to dodge, circumvent or ignore them, as you did in your earlier effort.
D. Spencer Hines---"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity
did evil for two thousand years, but honored good. This contradiction was
an honor to the human species,and formed the rift whereby civilization
slipped into the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
D. Spencer Hines
William! How good to hear from you again! I did think that business
about the "kill file" was a bit much. ["Plonk" Indeed!] You don't
strike me as an "ostrich" sort of fellow, who would bury his head in the
sand permanently----as some chaps are wont to do.
I fear, however, that you don't correctly recall the seminal issues of
the William Longespee/Rosamond/"Countess Ida" exchange. It is there for
the checking at Deja News. It's remarkable how many subscribers failed
to understand the central issues of that series of posts. People seem to
see what they want to see and ignore whatever doesn't conceptually fit
into their first impressions of a contoversy. They build a mental
structural template and rarely depart from it---even when new framing
mechanisms, issues and dynamics of logic emerge----or are presented.
Far be it from me to use James Goldman's, 1966 Broadway play [not a
novel, as you claim] as an authoritative source for anything but a
rousing good story, with strong Freudian elements. However, Goldman
did, generally, base his critical and central plot elements on
historical fact. His genius was in capturing Henry's alleged
personality and the dynamics of his controversies with his three
sons----Richard, Geoffrey and John Lackland. Goldman did study the
historical record and the contemporary, and near-contemporary, accounts
of Henry II's reign. But, please remember that I was the one who took
issue with Taylor Caldwell as a valid historical or genealogical source
[as well as her opinions on Genghis Khan's hair color and other people's
eye sockets ---- without evidence]---as did you---to some degree.
What makes you think I was using "The Lion in Winter" as a genealogical
reference? There he goes, jumping to conclusions again.
As to your "Five Son" riposte, again we need to buy you a good course in
Medieval History at Georgetown or Johns Hopkins. [Baltimore is probably
a bit of a trek, so I suppose it's going to be Georgetown.]
William, Henry II's first son died before the age of four [4]----no
major Father-Son Conficts there. Henry, his next eldest son, died in
1183 at age 28. His Dad, Henry II had allowed him to become "King of
England" in June 1170---and he was the clearly anointed heir-apparent.
So, there was hardly any rationale for a Father-Son donnybrook there
either---between Henry II and "Henry III" to be---who didn't ever really
take the reins of power, as he died vita patris.
Therefore, my statement about Henry's getting "little respect from his
three sons" was clearly right on the money. The principal struggle
occurred in the last few years of Henry's life, when the boys realized
that he would be departing for greener pastures---and the division of
spoils was soon to take place. Eleanor of Aquitaine was the aider and
abettor of the three sons' "treason" against their Father----and
continued to stir the pot when she could, which was often----because she
was a remarkably intelligent, astute and clever woman.
Vickie (Elam) White
D. Spencer Hines wrote --
>Henry II "The Lion in Winter" would undoubtedly love all the attention
>he gets nowadays. He certainly got little respect from his three sons.
>Perhaps Rosamond Clifford, who was reportedly his lover from 1166 to her
>death in 1177, [contrary to the previously expressed opinions of Walter
>Lee Sheppard, Todd A. Farmerie and Stewart Baldwin] would probably glory
>in it too.
I responded --
>I don't recall anyone [sic] claiming that Rosamond was not Henry's lover.
>Rather,it was the claim that she was the mother of Williaim LONGESPEE
>that was in dispute.
D. Spencer Hines responded --
>Please read precisely what I wrote. The words speak clearly for
>themselves---if read closely. Actually, other issues were in dispute,
>rather than the one you call out---and they were of more immediate
>critical importance as well. The relevant posts are all archived in Deja
>News.
No, they do not speak clearly. Actually, you wrote a very long message
in which you claimed that it is not possible to exclude Rosamonde as a
candidate for the mother of William LONGESPEE because no hard evidence
has been put forth about when she first became Henry II's lover and that
William's birthdate is unknown. Therefore, you should say that there were
other issues IN ADDITION to, not rather than... If you insist on picking
nits, pick some of your own as well.
Now, the above quote from you seems to indicate that either you are of the
opinion that Walter Lee Sheppard, Todd A. Farmerie and Stewart Baldwin
doubt that she was Henry II's lover, or that they doubt the dates of the
love affair. All right, I'll give you a chance to explain what you mean
by "reportedly his lover from 1166 to her death in 1177..." If you are
claiming that they doubt she was Henry's lover, I challenge that. I
cannot recall a single statement to that effect. If you are claiming that
your dates differ from their dates, aren't you the one who took us to task
about dating the affair, since we were not present in their bedroom?
And, by the way, Henry II got plenty of respect from his bastard son
Geoffrey. Perhaps you should have written that he got little respect from
three OF his sons. Those nits again.
Vickie (Elam) White
10265...@compuserve.com
Capon
>At 04:29 AM 3/28/97 +0000, Vickie [Elam] White wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>A long time ago, someone told me a joke about an Organ Grinder and a
>Monkey. I can't remember it very well. You know, one of those pedlar
>fellows, like the guy with the monkey in the IBM television commercial.
>Perhaps you can help me remember the rest of the joke.
>
>All I can remember is the punch line, which went---"I'd still rather talk
>to the Organ Grinder rather than his Monkey."
>
>Do you have any idea what that might mean? Thanks for your kind help.
>
>By the way, my testosterone level, which gave you such concern a while
>back, seems to be normal and healthy---according to the doctors.
>
>Perhaps Stewart Baldwin will turn out to have some small courage for his
>convictions, after all. We live in hope.
>
>D. Spencer Hines
>
>Answer. The punchline of the ''joke' means, I think - ' Don't deal with
inferiors (The monkeys) when you can deal with the Boss!! (The one who
make's the monkeys dance for peanuts!)'
By the way - what has this to do with Will the Conk, the subject of the item.
146 Butt Road, Colchester, Essex, CO3 3DR, UK
Phone (044) 1206-564605
D. Spencer Hines
At 04:29 AM 3/28/97 +0000, Vickie [Elam] White wrote:
<snip>
A long time ago, someone told me a joke about an Organ Grinder and a
Monkey. I can't remember it very well. You know, one of those pedlar
fellows, like the guy with the monkey in the IBM television commercial.
Perhaps you can help me remember the rest of the joke.
All I can remember is the punch line, which went---"I'd still rather talk
to the Organ Grinder rather than his Monkey."
Do you have any idea what that might mean? Thanks for your kind help.
By the way, my testosterone level, which gave you such concern a while
back, seems to be normal and healthy---according to the doctors.
Perhaps Stewart Baldwin will turn out to have some small courage for his
convictions, after all. We live in hope.
D. Spencer Hines---"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity
Stewart Baldwin
To the rest of the group:
Yes, I know. I probably should have avoided pointing out Spencer's
error when he attributed an opinion to me which I never stated. My
original plan was to ignore him, but when he then followed up by
criticizing Vickie (Elam) White for what amounted to a very minor
misinterpretation of his statement, I felt compelled to throw his own
words back at him. Until now, I have been trying to ignore Spencer's
continuing insults against me. However, it is against my nature to
get repeatedly insulted without giving some kind of response, and I
find that I must get it out of my system, with apologies to the rest
of you for being off-topic. I promise that I will try to be as brief
and civil as the situation allows, and that I will not respond to any
reply he might make to this message.
To Spencer:
The mistake which you made that resulted in my previous posting was a
minor one, and easy to make, since I had previously stated a number of
opinions which were closely related to the one which you erroneously
attributed to me. However, it appears that you are unwilling to admit
to even this tiny little mistake, and have replied instead with the
type of material for which you have become so well-known in this
newsgroup. Based on the repeated personal attacks which you have been
directing against me during the last few weeks, it is clear that I
have been convicted of the crime of disagreeing with one or more of
your opinions (to which I plead guilty), and that as punishment for my
crime, I have been sentenced to your "enemies list" (or whatever else
you might call the list of people whom you have chosen to insult),
which is actually not such a bad place to reside, considering the fine
company which is available there. So be it. As for your complaints
that I have not been posting the responses which you think that I
should, why should I bother, when I know that the inevitable result
will be more of what you are famous for? As you continue to exercise
your constitutional right of free speech, I plan to exercise my right
to respond or not respond as I see fit.
Go ahead, Spencer. You can have the last word. I promise not to
respond.
Stewart Baldwin
"D. Spencer Hines" <shi...@WORLDNET.ATT.NET> wrote:
>At 10:02 PM 3/27/97 +0000, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>>
>>I was rather surprised to find out about the above opinion which I had
>>supposedly expressed. In fact, I recall posting only one item to this
>>newsgroup (other than this one) in which Rosamund was mentioned, and I
>>offered no opinion regarding the interval of time during which she was
>>Henry's mistress. In that posting, I did point out the
>>inappropriateness of your previous personal attack against Walter Lee
>>Sheppard, but I did not state whether or not I agreed with his
>>comments, and any "reading between the lines" which you may have done
>>on that occasion does not constitute a statement by me. With that in
>>mind, it might be appropriate for you to play close attention to the
>>following words:
>>
>>Please read precisely what I wrote. The words speak clearly for
>>themselves---if read closely. Actually, other issues were in dispute,
>>rather than the one you call out---and they were of more immediate
>>critical importance as well. The relevant posts are all archived in
>>Deja News.
>>
>>Stewart Baldwin
>>
>D. Spencer Hines---"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity
D. Spencer Hines
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>
> To the rest of the group:
<snip>
> However, it is against my nature to
> get repeatedly insulted without giving some kind of response, and I
> find that I must get it out of my system, with apologies to the rest
> of you for being off-topic. I promise that I will try to be as brief
> and civil as the situation allows, and that I will not respond to any
> reply he might make to this message.
[In the Free Market of Ideas, one DOES respond to critiques, without
becoming angry or "pinked" and sulking. Strong, intelligent women and
men do not stick their heads in the sand like ostriches----but respond
with SUBSTANCE---i.e., evidence held together in a framework of logic.
We do not throw temper tantrums and insult each others' Mothers, as
children and kids are sometimes wont to do. We realize that truth comes
out of honest and straightforward conflict and that there will be some
verbal [not physical---that would be a bad show] rough-and-tumble as our
British cousins put it. "Question Time"---in the House of Commons---is
a good example. Even a backbencher, "petulant brat" may ask the Queen's
First Minister and Head of Government a pointed, direct, often
embarrassing question. You apparently do not want to be a participant
and player in the Free Market of Ideas.]
>
> To Spencer:
<snip>
>
> As for your complaints
> that I have not been posting the responses which you think that I
> should, why should I bother, when I know that the inevitable result
> will be more of what you are famous for?
[YOU, Stewart, CONTROL what you say in your responses, NOT I. I should
not want it any other way. But responses need to have some SUBSTANCE and
deal with facts, evidence and logic----rather than be totally
content-free as is your post, to which I am responding. You obviously
wrote it in a state of high emotion and perhaps hate and fear---the
strains show. I have no personal animus toward you. However, I firmly
believe that you have played fast and loose with the facts on a number
of occasions and you constantly mis-interpret the writings of others in
this newsgroup. In at least one case, with me, you made a bright line
transgression.
Just this morning, I have received 11 e'mail messages from members who
feel they have previously been savaged by your carelessness and, in five
cases, alleged premeditated malice. Nine of the eleven indicate that
they have chosen not to post anymore to GEN-MEDIEVAL because of your
shenanigans. That is a great shame, because we are all denied their
insights, information and wisdom.
Unlike you, or Todd A. Farmerie, or William Addams Reitwiesner, or
Gordon Fisher or Robert Leutner or Anders Berg----I will never stick my
head in the sand, like an ostrich, and ignore intelligent, sharply
focused critiques. But, I shall answer them one at a time, on my
schedule. In addition, I am well aware of the "surrogate champion
syndrome" where the medieval knight refuses to come out and fight---but
sends his squire. I don't fight [verbally, of course----no fisticuffs or
slurs on Mothers] with squires.
In the instant case above, I have even responded to a message from you
that is certainly NOT substantive or sharply focused, but emotional and
overwrought. You have made zero attempt to respond to any of the quite
specific, on-topic and sharply focused points I made in the message I
sent you on Rurik of Novgorod----or the additional specific points I
sent to your "surrogate champion" Vickie (Elam) White---a message you
have as well.
Kudos to Vickie on one point. She is certainly no ostrich. Not for her
to hide in the castle, while someone else fights her battles with
broadsword, mace and epee.
The ball is clearly in your court and if you want to deal in
substance---rather than emotional trivia and whining---I shall be
pleased to respond.
D. Spencer Hines
Someone on GEN-MEDIEVAL, who---is not important---recently said:
"As for your complaints that I have not been posting the responses which
you think that I should, why should I bother, when I know that the
inevitable result will be more of what you are famous for?"
The words had a familiar but troubling and spooky ring to me---so I did
some research into where I might have seen similar thoughts expressed
before.
Here they are:
"Lenin's patience, never plentiful, was exhausted. "Why," he demanded,
"should we bother to reply to Kautsky? He would reply to us, and we
would have to reply to his reply. There's no end to that. It will be
quite enough for us to announce that Kautsky is a traitor to the working
class, and everyone will understand everything." "The Unknown Lenin:
From the Secret Archive" **Yale University Press** (1996) Newsweek, 16
Sep 1996, p.100
Yes, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (1870-1924)--- whose revolutionary name was
N. Lenin---did not believe much in an open dialogue among folks of all
walks of life, i.e., the Free Market of Ideas. Lenin would not have
approved of the Internet or the World Wide Web or International
Newsgroups that reach across and join together women and men of all the
nationalities. It would not sit well with his concept of "a dictatorship
of the proletariat"---the vanguard elite---controlling the churning
masses of simple, ignorant people.
That's one major reason why statues of Lenin have been pulled down and
reduced to rubble---where thay serve a useful purpose as sidewalk and
road filler---all over the World. Only a few have been preserved as
historical antiquities. And, Vladimir Ilyich, himself, continues to be
swept into the Dustbin of History.
"You mean that the person on the other end can actually disagree and
answer back?"
"Yes, Ilyich."
"Most dangerous and counter-revolutionary thinking, comrade. We will say
"Nyet" to the Internet."
But we said "Da"-----didn't we?
Vickie (Elam) White
D. Spencer Hines wrote, responding to Stewart Baldwin --
>I have no personal animus toward you. However, I firmly believe that
>you have played fast and loose with the facts on a number of
>occasions and you constantly mis-interpret the writings of others in
>this newsgroup.
This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
>In the instant case above, I have even responded to a message from
>you that is certainly NOT substantive or sharply focused, but
>emotional and overwrought. You have made zero attempt to respond to
>any of the quite specific, on-topic and sharply focused points I made
>in the message I sent you on Rurik of Novgorod----or the additional
>specific points I sent to your "surrogate champion" Vickie (Elam)
>White---a message you have as well.
Excuse me, but I am not a "surrogate champion." If you have a problem
with Stewart, deal with him directly and don't bring me into it. My
postings, warts and all, are my own. If I happen to agree or
disagree with someone else on the list, I will say so. This is not
because I have been put forward as a surrogate, but rather because I
have reached my own conclusions and because I am here to learn as much as
possible about our medieval ancestors
and the times in which they lived. I have no hidden agendas. In
fact,I'm not really certain to which message you are referring. When
did I act as Stewart's supposed "surrogate champion"? True, I am
working with others on the LONGESPEE and CORBET-MALLORY matters, but
it just so happens that Stewart is not one of them (although he is
certainly welcome, I have much respect for his work).
As for your statement that your own messages are "quite specific,
on-topic and sharply focused" I find that incredibly egotistical.
Mind you don't dislocate your shoulder while patting yourself on the
back.
>Kudos to Vickie on one point. She is certainly no ostrich. Not for
>her to hide in the castle, while someone else fights her battles with
>broadsword, mace and epee.
Well, you are correct in this at least.
Vickie (Elam) White
10265...@compuserve.com
Richard Carruthers
Roit, you lot!
How abaht we invoke the ol' med'eval tradition of the 'Peace of God'?
To say the least the content of this list, unless one wants to follow all
the obscure meanderings of the internecine skirmishing, 'passeth all
understanding'.
Smile, take a deep breath and, don't take life too seriously, none of us gets
out alive.
Can we try for a day (Easter Sunday, perhaps) to stop flinging the arrows
of outraged sensibilities (to adapt a phrase)?
Happy Easter (and Old New Year's too, on Lady Day),
Richard
--
Richard H.B.Carruthers(-Zurowski), B.A., Hons, Oxon. cw...@freenet.carleton.ca
34a, Acacia Avenue, Rockcliffe Park, Ontario K1M 0P4, CANADA; (613) 749-3825.
paternal 16-quartiers: Zurowski, Sanocka, Karst, Puetz, Bayerle, Hoffmann,
Schroeder, Zettel, Fahlmann, Doppermann, Frei, -, Ehmann, -, Reilaender, -.
Grant Menzies
"I. Merrill" <I...@THEGRID.NET> wrote:
>Vickie:
>I am taking no part in the fracas regarding DS Hines, but just wanted to
>make one small comment regarding your response to this individual.
>I was told the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" had its roots in
>racism of an earlier day. If this correct, I would respectfully suggest
>that there must be another phrase you could employ to convey the same
>message.
It has nothing whatever to do with "political-incorrectness", and
everything to do with the fact that a kettle and a pot can be made out
of the same metal--in the case of this saying, perhaps iron?--and is
just another version of the saying about people in glass houses. It's
an admonition about hypocrisy, and there's enough of that going on in
PC-land without having to go looking for it where it simply does not
exist.
G M Menzies
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Se non e vero, e un molto ben trovato
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Sara M White
This seems to me to be a very odd request:
a. To ask someone to modify behaviour on the basis of information about which
the writer says he is not sure seems to me to be very peculiar.
b. I dislike the current assumption that any reference to black is
necessarily negative: surely the primary meaning of this image is that the
pot and the kettle share the same quality rather than that the quality is
necessarily negative?
c. I share the writer's implied dislike of people being addressed in
insulting terms, especially went the insult is chosen on the basis of a
feature over which the target has no concern but it seems to me that this sort
of over-sensitivity to a perfectly ordinary image does nothing at all to
lessen racism and distracts attention from worthy causes for concern.
Furthermore, if every image containing any reference to colour were deleted
from the English language it would be the poorer for it.
SMW
----------
From: Medieval Genealogy Discussion List on behalf of I. Merrill
Sent: 30 March 1997 04:16
To: GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM
Subject: Re: Response to D. Spencer Hines
Vickie:
I am taking no part in the fracas regarding DS Hines, but just wanted to
make one small comment regarding your response to this individual.
I was told the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" had its roots in
racism of an earlier day. If this correct, I would respectfully suggest
that there must be another phrase you could employ to convey the same
message.
I certainly have no wish to embarass you if this is true, or myself if it
is not, by posting this to the group so elected to contact you privately.
No antagonism meant, just good intentions. I think it behooves every
person to be a little sensitive about these issues.
Thank you.
I. Merrill
----------
> From: Vickie (Elam) White <10265...@COMPUSERVE.COM>
> To: GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM
> Subject: Re: Response to D. Spencer Hines
> Date: Saturday, March 29, 1997 4:22 PM
Hal
>
>
>I certainly have no wish to embarass you if this is true, or myself if it
>is not, by posting this to the group so elected to contact you privately.
>
>
>I. Merrill
>
>----------
You chose a rather strange way to contact Vickie "privately", as you
posted your message in the newsgroup. Also, I don't think your "PCness"
will play very well here. Since you stated yourself that you weren't sure
of the origin of the "pot calling the kettle black" phrase, your
suggestion of a possible racist meaning on the part of the user is
uncalled for. Some basic research first on your part before your posting
was probably warranted.
Cheers,
Hal
Richard Barney
At 10:30 PM 3/30/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I know I will creamed for this, but, if everyone would just ignore shines our
>mail volume would go down about 90 percent ( I know, I'm adding). Lurking
>for many months here, I have found shines as a taker, rarely a giver, of
>genealogical data. It would tak will power, but, I think if we ignore
>him/her?? we will have a lot less occasion to use our "DELETE" key. I know
>it is difficult--look at me!! A hope before more of the real genealogists on
>this list unsubscribe.
>
>Always optimistic--Dave
>
>Perhaps you could define what one might call others that don't qualify as
"real" genealogists? I guess that I and some others must be imitations of
some kind......come on, the internet is the last free communication left...
Don't try and hog this medium with elitist qualifications...thirst for knowledge
plus some ripe repartee is good for the soul Richard Barney.
Dave Utzinger
Tfbrandi
I was wondering the same as you, Richard. Things did seem to be skirting
the periphery of pedantia. Entertaining, though.
I have just discovered my own (possible) descent, twice, from Wm. the
Conqueror, and seek advice/guidance/approval about the lines as I have
them to see if I have them correctly. The first is:
1. Wm.
2. Henry I
3. Princess Elizabeth & Fergus, Lord of Galloway
4. Uchtred, Lord of Galloway & Guinnild of Dunbar
5. Roland of Galloway and Elena/Helena de Morville
6. Alan de Galloway & Helen de L'Isle
7. Helen/Elena of Galloway & Roger De Quincy, Earl of Winchester
8. Elizabeth/Isabel De Quincy & Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan
9. Elizabeth Comyn & Gilbert De Umfreville, Earl of Angus
10. Robert de Umfreville, Earl of Angus, & Alianore -
11.Thomas De Umfreville & Joan De Roddam
12. Thomas De Umfreville & Agnes -
13. Elizabeth De Umfreville & William Elmedon
14. Joan de Elmedon & Thomas Foster
15. Thomas Foster & Elizabeth Featherstonhaugh
16. Roger Foster & Joan Hussey
17. Thomas Foster & Margaret Browning
18. Thomas Foster & Susan Forster
19. Christopher Foster & Frances Stevens
(Sorry for not capitalizing the surnames...points me up as an amateur)
The second line is:
1. Wm
2. Princess Gundred & William De Warren
3. William De Warren, Earl of Surrey & Isabel De Vermandois
4. Ada De Warenne & Henry, Prince of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon
5. Marjory, Princess of Scotland & Gilchrist, Earl of Angus
6. Duncan, Earl of Angus
7. Malcolm, Earl of Angus, Earl of Caithness & Mary (Maud) de Berkeley
8. Maud, Countess of Angus & Gilbert de Umfreville, Baron Prudhoe
9. Gilbert De Umfreville, Earl of Angus & Elizabeth Comyn
(continue from #10 above)
please e-mail any replies to this board or direct to TedB...@aol.com
Many, many thanks.
Kathleen Much
In article <19970407171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Tfbrandi <tfbr...@aol.com> wrote:
>I was wondering the same as you, Richard. Things did seem to be skirting
>the periphery of pedantia. Entertaining, though.
>I have just discovered my own (possible) descent, twice, from Wm. the
>Conqueror, and seek advice/guidance/approval about the lines as I have
>them to see if I have them correctly. The first is:
>
>1. Wm.
>2. Henry I
very old tradition that one of them (sister of Sibilla, who married
King Alexander I of Scotland) married Fergus. But nobody seems
to cite documentary evidence.
>3. Princess Elizabeth & Fergus, Lord of Galloway
>4. Uchtred, Lord of Galloway & Guinnild of Dunbar
>5. Roland of Galloway and Elena/Helena de Morville
>6. Alan de Galloway & Helen de L'Isle
OK to here. But the mother of Helen seems to have been a Lacy:
Keith Stringer, "Periphery and Core in Thirteenth-Century Scotland"
(page proof and personal communication, 7 Aug 1992), Appendix 2: "The
latest possible date [of a charter dated 19 Dec. 1200 x 1 Oct. 1211]
is fixed by Roger de Lacy's death (_Book of Fees_, i, p. 64). One of
his daughters, whose name is unknown, was evidently Alan's first wife,
and the manor of Kippax formed part of her dowry."
>7. Helen/Elena of Galloway & Roger De Quincy, Earl of Winchester
>8. Elizabeth/Isabel De Quincy & Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan
>9. Elizabeth Comyn & Gilbert De Umfreville, Earl of Angus
>10. Robert de Umfreville, Earl of Angus, & Alianore -
>11.Thomas De Umfreville & Joan De Roddam
>12. Thomas De Umfreville & Agnes -
>13. Elizabeth De Umfreville & William Elmedon
Here's where the dating gets tricky. I assume you are using F.L.
Weis's _Magna Charta Sureties_. Joan de Elmeden is said to have been
born about 1465--but Weis cites _Complete Peerage_ as giving her
mother's death as 1424 and father's as 1447. A posthumous birth by 40
years is really stretching it.
>14. Joan de Elmedon & Thomas Foster
You've skipped a generation according to Weis: Son of Joan and Thomas
was another Thomas b. 1448 (kind of tough if his mother was born
1465), who m. Elizabeth de Etherstone b. 1450. I consider these
generations unproved.
>15. Thomas Foster & Elizabeth Featherstonhaugh
>16. Roger Foster & Joan Hussey
>17. Thomas Foster & Margaret Browning
>18. Thomas Foster & Susan Forster
Thomas Willing Balch, _The Brooke Family of Whitchurch, Hampshire,
England_ (Philadelphia: Allen, Lane & Scott, 1899), gives their
children as Susan, Thomas, Robert, Mary, and Catherine. Where does
Christopher come in?
>19. Christopher Foster & Frances Stevens
>The second line is:
>
>1. Wm
David C. Douglas, _William the Conqueror_ (London, 1964), p. 392: "The
view once held that Matilda was already married when William sought
her hand, and was then the mother of a daughter, Gundrada, later the
wife of William of Warenne, has now been conclusively disproved by the
researches of Chester Waters and Sir Charles Clay. There is no reason
to suppose that Gundrada was the daughter either of William or
Matilda." Ordericus Vitalis says that the wife of William de Warrenne
was Gundred the sister of Gherbode the Fleming, Earl of Chester.
>2. Princess Gundred & William De Warren
>3. William De Warren, Earl of Surrey & Isabel De Vermandois
>4. Ada De Warenne & Henry, Prince of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon
>5. Marjory, Princess of Scotland & Gilchrist, Earl of Angus
Cokayne's *Complete Peerage*, vol. I, page 146, note (a), in reference
to Gilchrist: "It has been said, but this is doubtful, that his wife
was Maud, or Margery, sister of King William the Lion."
>6. Duncan, Earl of Angus
>7. Malcolm, Earl of Angus, Earl of Caithness & Mary (Maud) de Berkeley
>8. Maud, Countess of Angus & Gilbert de Umfreville, Baron Prudhoe
>9. Gilbert De Umfreville, Earl of Angus & Elizabeth Comyn
>(continue from #10 above)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Much, Editor |Email: kath...@casbs.stanford.EDU
CASBS, 202 Junipero Serra Blvd. |Phone: (415) 321-2052 x 325
Stanford, CA 94305 |Fax: (415) 321-1192
William Addams Reitwiesner
tfbr...@aol.com (Tfbrandi) wrote:
>I was wondering the same as you, Richard. Things did seem to be skirting
>the periphery of pedantia. Entertaining, though.
>I have just discovered my own (possible) descent, twice, from Wm. the
>Conqueror, and seek advice/guidance/approval about the lines as I have
>them to see if I have them correctly. The first is:
>
>1. Wm.
>2. Henry I
>3. Princess Elizabeth & Fergus, Lord of Galloway
(Elizabeth was a bastard, and thus wasn't a Princess)
>4. Uchtred, Lord of Galloway & Guinnild of Dunbar
>5. Roland of Galloway and Elena/Helena de Morville
>6. Alan de Galloway & Helen de L'Isle
>7. Helen/Elena of Galloway & Roger De Quincy, Earl of Winchester
>8. Elizabeth/Isabel De Quincy & Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan
>9. Elizabeth Comyn & Gilbert De Umfreville, Earl of Angus
>10. Robert de Umfreville, Earl of Angus, & Alianore -
>11.Thomas De Umfreville & Joan De Roddam
>12. Thomas De Umfreville & Agnes -
>13. Elizabeth De Umfreville & William Elmedon
>14. Joan de Elmedon & Thomas Foster
>15. Thomas Foster & Elizabeth Featherstonhaugh
(15 is actually two generations)
15a. Thomas F m. Elizabeth de Etherstone
15b. Thomas F m. -- Featherstonehaugh
(See Gary Boyd Roberts, *Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants* [Baltimore:
Genealogical, 1993), p. 385).
>16. Roger Foster & Joan Hussey
>17. Thomas Foster & Margaret Browning
>18. Thomas Foster & Susan Forster
>19. Christopher Foster & Frances Stevens
>
>(Sorry for not capitalizing the surnames...points me up as an amateur)
>
>The second line is:
>
>1. Wm
------ cut here -------------------------
>2. Princess Gundred & William De Warren
>3. William De Warren, Earl of Surrey & Isabel De Vermandois
>4. Ada De Warenne & Henry, Prince of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon
--- (no real evidence of who Gilchrist married) -----------
>5. Marjory, Princess of Scotland & Gilchrist, Earl of Angus
>6. Duncan, Earl of Angus
>7. Malcolm, Earl of Angus, Earl of Caithness & Mary (Maud) de Berkeley
>8. Maud, Countess of Angus & Gilbert de Umfreville, Baron Prudhoe
>9. Gilbert De Umfreville, Earl of Angus & Elizabeth Comyn
>(continue from #10 above)
>
>please e-mail any replies to this board or direct to TedB...@aol.com
>
>Many, many thanks.
See C. T. Clay, *Early Yorkshire Charters*, vol VIII, appendix A (pp.
40-46) for the proof that Gundred, wife of William de Warenne, was not
a child of William the Conqueror, or of his wife. She was, instead, a
sister of Gerbod the Fleming, Earl of Chester, and possibly a daughter
of Gerbod, hereditary advocate of the abbey of St. Bertin at St. Omer.
This was published more than seventy years ago, but apparently not
everybody has kept up. See the second edition of Cokayne's *Complete
Peerage*, vol. XII, part 1, p. 494, note (j).
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Todd A. Farmerie
Alan B. Wilson wrote:
>
> 38 Richard of Evreux Count. Born circa 986. Of
> Rouen, S-Infr, France. Died 13 Dec 1067. Count of Evreux.
> 39 Adelaide of Barcelona. Born circa 1004. Of
> Normandy. Died 1051.
I don't this there is any evidence that Richard married Adelaide of
Barcelona. It is clear that Richard married the widow of Roger de
Toeni, and it is written that Roger de Toeni married the daughter of the
Countess of Barcelona, but that they were the same wife (or even the
same Roger) is less clear.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> >I was wondering the same as you, Richard. Things did seem to be skirting
> >the periphery of pedantia. Entertaining, though.
> >I have just discovered my own (possible) descent, twice, from Wm. the
> >Conqueror, and seek advice/guidance/approval about the lines as I have
> >them to see if I have them correctly. The first is:
> >
> >1. Wm.
> >2. Henry I
> very old tradition that one of them (sister of Sibilla, who married
> King Alexander I of Scotland) married Fergus. But nobody seems
> to cite documentary evidence.
>
I recall this coming up in the follow-up discussion to Sheppard's Royal
Bye Blows article. I think it is Turton who shows her to have been
bastard of William Rufus, but this is chronologically difficult, so she
was shifted to Henry I, but I have not looked at it in some time, so
this may be incorrect.
taf
Gordon Fisher
Is this relevant?
"Richard, c. of Evreux, d. 1067 = Godehildis, widow of Roger I of Tosny"
--- David C Douglas, *William the Conqueror*, 1964, p 422
Ed Mann
GE>I was wondering the same as you, Richard. Things did seem to be skirting
GE>the periphery of pedantia. Entertaining, though.
GE>I have just discovered my own (possible) descent, twice, from Wm. the
GE>Conqueror, and seek advice/guidance/approval about the lines as I have
GE>them to see if I have them correctly. The first is:
GE>1. Wm.
ok
GE>2. Henry I
ok
GE>3. Princess Elizabeth & Fergus, Lord of Galloway
ok
GE>4. Uchtred, Lord of Galloway & Guinnild of Dunbar
ok
GE>5. Roland of Galloway and Elena/Helena de Morville
ok
GE>6. Alan de Galloway & Helen de L'Isle
ok
GE>7. Helen/Elena of Galloway & Roger De Quincy, Earl of Winchester
ok
GE>8. Elizabeth/Isabel De Quincy & Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan
ok
GE>9. Elizabeth Comyn & Gilbert De Umfreville, Earl of Angus
ok
GE>10. Robert de Umfreville, Earl of Angus, & Alianore -
ok
GE>11.Thomas De Umfreville & Joan De Roddam
ok
GE>12. Thomas De Umfreville & Agnes -
ok. Agnes is Agnes de Grey
GE>13. Elizabeth De Umfreville & William Elmedon
ok
GE>14. Joan de Elmedon & Thomas Foster
ok. Weis shows Thomas' surname as Forster. See Magna Charta Sureties,
1215, 4th ed. line 110-9.
GE>15. Thomas Foster & Elizabeth Featherstonhaugh
ok, albeit Weis shows "de Etherstone" as surname
Weis also adds another generation here, Thomas Forster, with no spouse
name shown.
GE>16. Roger Foster & Joan Hussey
ok.
GE>17. Thomas Foster & Margaret Browning
ok.
GE>18. Thomas Foster & Susan Forster
ok, although Weis shows Susan's surname as Foster.
GE>19. Christopher Foster & Frances Stevens
Weis does not show this generation, but does show a daughter Susan.
GE>(Sorry for not capitalizing the surnames...points me up as an amateur)
Nah - now, claiming descent from Robin Hood would be a bit shaky. . .
8^)
GE>The second line is:
GE>1. Wm
GE>2. Princess Gundred & William De Warren
Weis shows Gundred as daughter of Gherbod the Fleming, not William.
GE>3. William De Warren, Earl of Surrey & Isabel De Vermandois
GE>4. Ada De Warenne & Henry, Prince of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon
GE>5. Marjory, Princess of Scotland & Gilchrist, Earl of Angus
GE>6. Duncan, Earl of Angus
I have no listing for gen. 5 and 6 above. They might be correct, I just
dunno.
GE>7. Malcolm, Earl of Angus, Earl of Caithness & Mary (Maud) de Berkeley
ok
GE>8. Maud, Countess of Angus & Gilbert de Umfreville, Baron Prudhoe
ok
GE>9. Gilbert De Umfreville, Earl of Angus & Elizabeth Comyn
GE>(continue from #10 above)
Todd A. Farmerie
Alan B. Wilson wrote:
>
> 38 Richard of Evreux Count. Born circa 986. Of
> Rouen, S-Infr, France. Died 13 Dec 1067. Count of Evreux.
> 39 Adelaide of Barcelona. Born circa 1004. Of
> Normandy. Died 1051.
I don't think there is any evidence that Richard married Adelaide of
Susan Shannon
At 02:17 AM 4/8/97 GMT, you wrote:
>>3. Princess Elizabeth & Fergus, Lord of Galloway
>
>
Any idea which of Henry''s concubines was the moother of Elizabeth? Any
siblings?
TIA
Susan Shannon
Orlando
Researching Arnold, Brewster, Carpenter,
Greene, Rhodes, Rice, Russell, Turner,
Rice, Whitney
Alan B. Wilson
In article <1997040822...@sherman.shentel.net>, Medieval Genealogy
Discussion List <GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM> [Gordon Fisher] wrote:
> At 01:13 PM 4/8/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >Alan B. Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> 38 Richard of Evreux Count. Born circa 986. Of
> >> Rouen, S-Infr, France. Died 13 Dec 1067. Count of Evreux.
> >> 39 Adelaide of Barcelona. Born circa 1004. Of
> >> Normandy. Died 1051.
> >
> >I don't this there is any evidence that Richard married Adelaide of
> >Barcelona. It is clear that Richard married the widow of Roger de
> >Toeni, and it is written that Roger de Toeni married the daughter of the
> >Countess of Barcelona, but that they were the same wife (or even the
> >same Roger) is less clear.
> >
> >taf
>
> Is this relevant?
>
> "Richard, c. of Evreux, d. 1067 = Godehildis, widow of Roger I of Tosny"
> --- David C Douglas, *William the Conqueror*, 1964, p 422
I got the name "Adelaide" first from Moriarty, Plantagenet Ancestry,
p. 11. It also appears ("Adelaida", with an accent over the "e") in
Europaische Stammtafeln ii, 69 and 79 and in iii, 642. ES iii, 705 has
Roger I de Conches (of Tosny/Toeny) m. (1) N of Barcelona; m. (2)
Godehildis. (This last table--ES iii, 705--makes it appear that
Godehildis m. (2) Richard of Evreux, but the other three clearly identify
Adelaida. I assumed it was an inappropriate positioning of the
parenthetical statement of second marriage.)
--
Alan B. Wilson
abwi...@uclink2.berkeley.edu
Todd A. Farmerie
Alan B. Wilson wrote:
>
> In article <1997040822...@sherman.shentel.net>, Medieval Genealogy
> Discussion List <GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM> [Gordon Fisher] wrote:
>
> > At 01:13 PM 4/8/97 -0400, you wrote:
> > >Alan B. Wilson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 38 Richard of Evreux Count. Born circa 986. Of
> > >> Rouen, S-Infr, France. Died 13 Dec 1067. Count of Evreux.
> > >> 39 Adelaide of Barcelona. Born circa 1004. Of
> > >> Normandy. Died 1051.
> > >
> > >I don't this there is any evidence that Richard married Adelaide of
> > >Barcelona. It is clear that Richard married the widow of Roger de
> > >Toeni, and it is written that Roger de Toeni married the daughter of the
> > >Countess of Barcelona, but that they were the same wife (or even the
> > >same Roger) is less clear.
> > Is this relevant?
> >
> > "Richard, c. of Evreux, d. 1067 = Godehildis, widow of Roger I of Tosny"
> > --- David C Douglas, *William the Conqueror*, 1964, p 422
>
> I got the name "Adelaide" first from Moriarty, Plantagenet Ancestry,
> p. 11. It also appears ("Adelaida", with an accent over the "e") in
> Europaische Stammtafeln ii, 69 and 79 and in iii, 642. ES iii, 705 has
> Roger I de Conches (of Tosny/Toeny) m. (1) N of Barcelona; m. (2)
> Godehildis. (This last table--ES iii, 705--makes it appear that
> Godehildis m. (2) Richard of Evreux, but the other three clearly identify
> Adelaida. I assumed it was an inappropriate positioning of the
> parenthetical statement of second marriage.)
I suspect that this is one of the cases where ES is wrong (definitely it
is inconsistant). Most sources which directly study the Norman families
(such as Douglas) make Godehildis the widow of Roger and wife of Richard
(although some of them don't recognize two wives, and make Godehildis
from Barcelona). It is mostly the more distant European sources which
seem only to know of Adelaide (often not by name). An argument has even
been made (by Evans in his discussion of Tosny of Belvoir) that it was
not THIS Roger that married the daughter of the Countess of Barcelona,
but instead a hypothetical ancestor of the Belvoir line (whose founder
Robert had a brother named Berenger Spina).
taf
CARRIED AWAY
I've posted on a related issue before, but I'd particularly like
clarification on the following issue:
Until recently, I took it as given in the Dictionary of national
Biography etc that Jacina, daughter of Owen Tudor and Catherine de Valois
(Queen of King Henry V of England, and daughter of King Charles VI of
France and Isabeau of Bavaria) married Reginald, Lord Grey of Wilton.
Several sources ignore the existence of Jacina at all.
However, I was told that Jacina may actually have been an illegitimate
daughter of John Beaufort Duke of Somerset. In this case, she would have
been the half-sister of Margaret Beaufort instead of her sister-in-law,
which may have been how the confusion arose.
But which of the above is true? Can anyone give me more information on
Reginald Grey himself? I do know that a Lord Grey of Wilton was a
favourite of King Henry VIII in the 16th century (as well he might be,
since either way the Greys would have been relations of the royal house).
Did Jacina and Reginald have children, and if so is there any information
on them?
Thanks,
Michelle Murphy
*****************************************************************************
Michelle Murphy | "Every man has two names: the one
3rd year Business Studies student | he is given, and the one he wins
Trinity College Dublin | for himself"
E-mail: mmu...@alf2.tcd.ie | - "Merlin" (Stephen Lawhead)
Web: http://www3.tcd.ie/~mmurphy |
| "Running away only wears out your
Treasurer of TCD Sci Fi Society | shoes"
*Largest, most active society* | - Delboy, "Only Fools and Horses"
****************************************************************************
William Addams Reitwiesner
CARRIED AWAY <mmu...@TCD.IE> wrote:
>I've posted on a related issue before, but I'd particularly like
>clarification on the following issue:
>
>Until recently, I took it as given in the Dictionary of national
>Biography etc that Jacina, daughter of Owen Tudor and Catherine de Valois
>(Queen of King Henry V of England, and daughter of King Charles VI of
>France and Isabeau of Bavaria) married Reginald, Lord Grey of Wilton.
>
>Several sources ignore the existence of Jacina at all.
>
>However, I was told that Jacina may actually have been an illegitimate
>daughter of John Beaufort Duke of Somerset. In this case, she would have
>been the half-sister of Margaret Beaufort instead of her sister-in-law,
>which may have been how the confusion arose.
>
>But which of the above is true? Can anyone give me more information on
>Reginald Grey himself? I do know that a Lord Grey of Wilton was a
>favourite of King Henry VIII in the 16th century (as well he might be,
>since either way the Greys would have been relations of the royal house).
>
>Did Jacina and Reginald have children, and if so is there any information
>on them?
The Lord Grey of Wilton who was a favorite of Henry VIII was William
Grey, 13th Lord Grey of Wilton (d. 1562). He was a great-grandson of
Tacine (or Thomasine or Jacina or whatever her name was -- she was
named contemporaneously as "Tacine").
The only evidence as to her parentage is in William's funeral
ceremonial, which says (in part) that, of the gentlemen holding
banners, "the iiijth Henrye Brereton, bearing the banneroll of the
armes of the greate-graundfather and greate-graundmother to the
defunct in pale, Reygnolde lorde Grey, and Thomasyn or Thasyna base
daughter to John duke of Somersett." Vincent's Baronage, in the
College of Arms, calls her Thaceta, daughter of Owen son of Tudor, but
Vincent's source for this isn't known. See the second edition of
Cokayne's *Complete Peerage*, vol. VI, pp. 180-187, paying special
attention to the footnotes.
The current Queen Elizabeth II is descended from Tacine, through a
sister of William, 13th Lord Grey of Wilton. See Gerald Paget, *The
Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales*
[Edinburgh: Skilton, 1977], vol. II, p. 444, under ancestor Q115557.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."