Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
From the BeeGees to Byron - corrected
214 views
Skip to first unread message
Leo
Sep 1, 2012, 11:28:04 PM9/1/12
to GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Sir Robert Harcourt married Margaret Byron, daughter of Sir John Byron
This is all I found in
Georges Martin "Histoire et Genealogie de la Maison de Harcourt" page 223
The same in Gerald Paget's book on the ancestors of Prince Charles Q 98614
------------------------------------
In Burke's Peerage 1999 page 460 the Byron starts with Sir Richard Byron
(no wife) father of Sir John Byron married to Margery Booth. The latter
couple had a son (and at least one daughter Margaret married to Sir Robert
Harcourt, see Vernon).
However, Ronny Bodine in his work on the ancestors of Dorothea Poyntz,
starts earlier and in greater detail. I repeat mainly the generations
Sir James Byron, of Clayton married Elizabeth Bernake
|
Sir Richard Byron, of Clayton, married Joan Colewick
|
Sir John Byron, of Clayton, married Mergery Booth (see also Paget
Q123109 )
1387-ca.1460
|
Sir Nicholas Byron married Alice Butler
died 1459
|
Sir Nicholas Byron
|
Sir John Byron
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burke's Landed Gentry 1937 page 62
Sir John de Assheton K.B. mentioned in 1399, died 3 September 1428
married (I) Jane Savile (2) Margaret Byron, daughter of Sir John Byron, of
Clayton
-------------------------------
I spelled out the Byron lineage to show that in the appropriate period
there was only one ir John Byron, of Clayton, to be _the_ father of Margaret
Byron who married Sir John de Assheton.
The question is, did this Sir John Byron have two daughters Margaret? Or
was Margaret Byron married twice?
Sir John de Assheton and his second wife Margaret Byron are ancestors of
the BeeGees and if this Margaret Byron can be placed properly, makes the
BeeGees (very distant) cousins of Prince William as well as descendants of
William the Conqueror.
With many thanks
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
This is all I found in
Georges Martin "Histoire et Genealogie de la Maison de Harcourt" page 223
The same in Gerald Paget's book on the ancestors of Prince Charles Q 98614
------------------------------------
In Burke's Peerage 1999 page 460 the Byron starts with Sir Richard Byron
(no wife) father of Sir John Byron married to Margery Booth. The latter
couple had a son (and at least one daughter Margaret married to Sir Robert
Harcourt, see Vernon).
However, Ronny Bodine in his work on the ancestors of Dorothea Poyntz,
starts earlier and in greater detail. I repeat mainly the generations
Sir James Byron, of Clayton married Elizabeth Bernake
|
Sir Richard Byron, of Clayton, married Joan Colewick
|
Sir John Byron, of Clayton, married Mergery Booth (see also Paget
Q123109 )
1387-ca.1460
|
Sir Nicholas Byron married Alice Butler
died 1459
|
Sir Nicholas Byron
|
Sir John Byron
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burke's Landed Gentry 1937 page 62
Sir John de Assheton K.B. mentioned in 1399, died 3 September 1428
married (I) Jane Savile (2) Margaret Byron, daughter of Sir John Byron, of
Clayton
-------------------------------
I spelled out the Byron lineage to show that in the appropriate period
there was only one ir John Byron, of Clayton, to be _the_ father of Margaret
Byron who married Sir John de Assheton.
The question is, did this Sir John Byron have two daughters Margaret? Or
was Margaret Byron married twice?
Sir John de Assheton and his second wife Margaret Byron are ancestors of
the BeeGees and if this Margaret Byron can be placed properly, makes the
BeeGees (very distant) cousins of Prince William as well as descendants of
William the Conqueror.
With many thanks
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
smith....@gmail.com
Sep 2, 2012, 7:40:08 AM9/2/12
to GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com, Leo
There have been a number of posts to the news group about the various John Ashtons and the confusion surrounding their wives.
It is not clear that the Margaret married to the Sir John Ashton d. 1428 was even a Byron as i recollected. HoP does not identify her as a Byron, although the HoP accounts garble the wives of the John Ashtons.
Doug Smith
Some sources:
Clarke-King (1917), pps 87-91. John Blythe Dobson, The Ancestry of Oliver Mainwairing (III), at http://cybrary.uwinnipeg.ca/people/Dobson/genealogy. HoP 1386 II: 78. VCH Lancs. VIII: 394.
Chetham Soc. 99: 22. Baines, History of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster (rev. ed. Croston 1893). B P & B. VCH Lancashire, Vol. IV, (1911), pps 338-347. The parish of Ashton-under-Lyne: Introduction, manor & boroughs', A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 4 (1911), pp. 338-347. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=41438&strquery=Orm son of Ailward Date accessed: 06 July 2012. http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/assheton-sir-john-ii-1428.
Alan Grey
Sep 3, 2012, 7:43:54 PM9/3/12
to Leo, GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
I can't comment on Sir John Ashton as I don't know much about him, but
for what it's worth I don't think it likely that he married a
Margaret, daughter of Sir John Byron.
The statement of marriage may have arisen by the mistaken
interpretation of the 1415 agreement whereby Sir John Byron in 1415
made a settlement of lands in Droylsden when his daughter Elizabeth
married Thomas, son of Sir John Ashton [VCH (Lancashire), iv, 284,
citing Byron Chartul. no. 1/23; no. 8/24]. The marriage is not
surprising, given that Byron had been a ward of Ashton, but that
wardship itself would seem to make the purported John Ashton-Margaret
Byron marriage even more unlikely.
As for Byron's one known daughter named Margaret, she married (1)
William Atherton, and (2) Sir Robert Harcourt.
The first marriage is attested by the papal registers. On 22 October
1436, in response to a petition by William de Athirton, knight,
nobleman, and "Margarete ^dilecti filii nobilis riri^ Johannis Burun
mulieris", it was decreed that their marriage, which had been
contracted in church, was legitimate [Cal. Pap. reg., viii, 577-78].
(This was required because William had previously committed
fornication with a woman related to Maragert within the third and
fourth degrees of kindred.) Note that they were apparently already
married by July 1435 [ibid., 570], although Margaret's name was not
then mentioned. As an aside, on 8 September 1440 John Byroun,
knight, entered into a lease for 10 years with William de Athirton,
son and heir of William de Athirton, knight, of a field in Athirton,
the rent being one rose yearly, if demanded. [Cal. Cl. Rolls, 19 H.
VI, 435], and this is the last known (by me) record of William
Athirton, though I have not done an exhaustive check of Athirton
records.
The second marriage is attested by the records of Ronton Priory, where
it is stated that "Roberto de Harecourt ... qui desponsavit Margeriam
filiam domini Johannis Berone militis" [Monasticon, vi(1), 258, cf.
Coll. Hist. Staff., iv, 272, which has "Margaretam" and "Johannis
Bevone, miliis"]. Ronton's account of the Harcourts is accurate and
independently verified (except for very early generations), and as
this was one of the last generations recorded (only two more followed)
it was much closer in time to when the record was made and the
marriage is more likely to have been known by those living at the
time. I'm not sure whether there is some other, more direct,
attestation to the marriage, but it is consistent with other records,
for the Byron and Harcourt families clearly had some association, as
well as a connection to Athirton and Ashton. For example, a fine of
16 March 1443 between John Byron, knight, and Robert Harecourt,
knight, and Margaret his wife, concerning lands in Athirton and
Assheton. (Presumably they acquired these lands through her first
marriage.) Robert and his wife Margaert (surname not given) were
married by July 1441 [Cal. Pap. Reg., ix, p.242].
Regards
Alan R Grey
for what it's worth I don't think it likely that he married a
Margaret, daughter of Sir John Byron.
The statement of marriage may have arisen by the mistaken
interpretation of the 1415 agreement whereby Sir John Byron in 1415
made a settlement of lands in Droylsden when his daughter Elizabeth
married Thomas, son of Sir John Ashton [VCH (Lancashire), iv, 284,
citing Byron Chartul. no. 1/23; no. 8/24]. The marriage is not
surprising, given that Byron had been a ward of Ashton, but that
wardship itself would seem to make the purported John Ashton-Margaret
Byron marriage even more unlikely.
As for Byron's one known daughter named Margaret, she married (1)
William Atherton, and (2) Sir Robert Harcourt.
The first marriage is attested by the papal registers. On 22 October
1436, in response to a petition by William de Athirton, knight,
nobleman, and "Margarete ^dilecti filii nobilis riri^ Johannis Burun
mulieris", it was decreed that their marriage, which had been
contracted in church, was legitimate [Cal. Pap. reg., viii, 577-78].
(This was required because William had previously committed
fornication with a woman related to Maragert within the third and
fourth degrees of kindred.) Note that they were apparently already
married by July 1435 [ibid., 570], although Margaret's name was not
then mentioned. As an aside, on 8 September 1440 John Byroun,
knight, entered into a lease for 10 years with William de Athirton,
son and heir of William de Athirton, knight, of a field in Athirton,
the rent being one rose yearly, if demanded. [Cal. Cl. Rolls, 19 H.
VI, 435], and this is the last known (by me) record of William
Athirton, though I have not done an exhaustive check of Athirton
records.
The second marriage is attested by the records of Ronton Priory, where
it is stated that "Roberto de Harecourt ... qui desponsavit Margeriam
filiam domini Johannis Berone militis" [Monasticon, vi(1), 258, cf.
Coll. Hist. Staff., iv, 272, which has "Margaretam" and "Johannis
Bevone, miliis"]. Ronton's account of the Harcourts is accurate and
independently verified (except for very early generations), and as
this was one of the last generations recorded (only two more followed)
it was much closer in time to when the record was made and the
marriage is more likely to have been known by those living at the
time. I'm not sure whether there is some other, more direct,
attestation to the marriage, but it is consistent with other records,
for the Byron and Harcourt families clearly had some association, as
well as a connection to Athirton and Ashton. For example, a fine of
16 March 1443 between John Byron, knight, and Robert Harecourt,
knight, and Margaret his wife, concerning lands in Athirton and
Assheton. (Presumably they acquired these lands through her first
marriage.) Robert and his wife Margaert (surname not given) were
married by July 1441 [Cal. Pap. Reg., ix, p.242].
Regards
Alan R Grey
Wjhonson
Sep 3, 2012, 11:05:27 PM9/3/12
to arvika...@gmail.com, can...@netspeed.com.au, GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
The Margaret who married William Atherton of Atherton (adult by 1436, living 1440, dead by 1441) had no children by him because she was an infant. Her second husband Sir Robert Harcourt of Stanton Harcourt, Oxon was as well perhaps 20 years her elder, but by him she had two children including Margaret who is ancestral to Princess Diana.
After he was slain in battle 14 Nov 1471, she took a third husband, her own age or perhaps up to nine years younger than herself, Sir Maurice Berkeley of Wymondham (died 1522) by whom she had a son Thomas.
So this lady could *not* by that one who is already said to have had a son by John Assheton Knight of the Bath, named Ralph who was under-aged 6H6 and a page 17H6. In fact, this second Margaret is more likely to be of an age to be her aunt or even great-aunt.
After he was slain in battle 14 Nov 1471, she took a third husband, her own age or perhaps up to nine years younger than herself, Sir Maurice Berkeley of Wymondham (died 1522) by whom she had a son Thomas.
So this lady could *not* by that one who is already said to have had a son by John Assheton Knight of the Bath, named Ralph who was under-aged 6H6 and a page 17H6. In fact, this second Margaret is more likely to be of an age to be her aunt or even great-aunt.
hsone
Sep 4, 2012, 9:36:46 PM9/4/12
to
On Sep 3, 8:05 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> The Margaret who married William Atherton of Atherton (adult by 1436, living 1440, dead by 1441) had no children by him because she was an infant. Her second husband Sir Robert Harcourt of Stanton Harcourt, Oxon was as well perhaps 20 years her elder, but by him she had two children including Margaret who is ancestral to Princess Diana.
>
> After he was slain in battle 14 Nov 1471, she took a third husband, her own age or perhaps up to nine years younger than herself, Sir Maurice Berkeley of Wymondham (died 1522) by whom she had a son Thomas.
>
> So this lady could *not* by that one who is already said to have had a son by John Assheton Knight of the Bath, named Ralph who was under-aged 6H6 and a page 17H6. In fact, this second Margaret is more likely to be of an age to be her aunt or even great-aunt.
>
<snip>
> The Margaret who married William Atherton of Atherton (adult by 1436, living 1440, dead by 1441) had no children by him because she was an infant. Her second husband Sir Robert Harcourt of Stanton Harcourt, Oxon was as well perhaps 20 years her elder, but by him she had two children including Margaret who is ancestral to Princess Diana.
>
> After he was slain in battle 14 Nov 1471, she took a third husband, her own age or perhaps up to nine years younger than herself, Sir Maurice Berkeley of Wymondham (died 1522) by whom she had a son Thomas.
>
> So this lady could *not* by that one who is already said to have had a son by John Assheton Knight of the Bath, named Ralph who was under-aged 6H6 and a page 17H6. In fact, this second Margaret is more likely to be of an age to be her aunt or even great-aunt.
>
Something is amiss here. Please see: NEHGS (January 1881), Vol 35: 69
"The Atherton Family in England" by John C. J. Brown gives 4 children
for Margaret Byron's marriage to Sir William Atherton. William,
Nicholas, John and Margery, wife of John Ireland of Hale & Hutt. Also
VCH Lancs III: 436 and Baines V:51.
Sorry but where does the interpretation that she was an infant come
from when she was sister of Elizabeth Byron who married in 1415 to Sir
Thomas Assheton? There were five sons: Richard, William, Laurence, Sir
Nicholas and Ralph and five daughters: Elizabeth Margaret or Margery,
Jane (wife of William Radcliffe), Ellen (wife of Walter, Lord
Mountjoy) and Katharine (wife of William Brereton) from the marriage
of Sir John Byron and Margery Booth.
HS
Wjhonson
Sep 4, 2012, 9:45:01 PM9/4/12
to seal...@gmail.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
William had a previous wife. Margaret was a much later trophy wife.
Her third husband, by whom she had issue, could not have married her before 1471. So she could not be 80 years old at this time....
Someone has confused this Margaret with her name sake who lived one to two generations earlier.
-----Original Message-----
From: hsone <seal...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 4, 2012 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: From the BeeGees to Byron - corrected
hsone
Sep 5, 2012, 2:29:03 AM9/5/12
to
On Sep 4, 6:45 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> William had a previous wife. Margaret was a much later trophy wife.
> Her third husband, by whom she had issue, could not have married her before 1471. So she could not be 80 years old at this time....
>
> Someone has confused this Margaret with her name sake who lived one to two generations earlier.
<sniP>
> William had a previous wife. Margaret was a much later trophy wife.
> Her third husband, by whom she had issue, could not have married her before 1471. So she could not be 80 years old at this time....
>
> Someone has confused this Margaret with her name sake who lived one to two generations earlier.
Not so fast. You have provided no sources for your statements:
(1) That William Atherton had a wife previous to Margaret/Margery
Byron who was mother of his children.
(2) That the Margaret Byron married to William Atherton and Richard
Harcourt (1410-1470) was ever married to Thomas Berkeley (or Maurice
Berkeley as undocumented Peerage books state which indicate the
Atherton and Berkeley marriages, but omit Harcourt)
(3) That this Margaret Byron if married to Thomas Berkeley was mother
to any of his children.
Margaret Byron was buried with her second husband at Stanton-Harcourt.
Her tomb is described in several books. She was alive in 1484 as
Harcourt's widow (died 1486?), but no mention of Berkeley marriage.
Again I would point you to VCH Lancs III:436. that Margaret Byron was
mother of Atherton's four children. Also Atherton pedigree in Dugdale
Visitation of Lancashire also indicates Margaret Byron was mother of
Atherton's children. And Wedgewood (p. 420) states that Margaret was
still Harcourt's widow in August 1484 with no mention of a Berkeley
marriage. Son John Harcourt was at least 20 years old in 1470 at
father's death as son and heir. Also Robert and Margaret were pardoned
in February 1446. How likely would an infant have been pardoned as
wife of second husband she married in or about 1440?
I gave the courtesy of sources to back up my questions to your
declarations. You provide nothing except more opinions. There is
definitely some conflict, I acknowledge that. I am not saying that I
am right, only that you have provided nothing to prove you are.
HS
Wjhonson
Sep 5, 2012, 10:29:15 AM9/5/12
to seal...@gmail.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Richard Harcourt was certainly not born in 1410. We have no idea the year in which he was born.
And he died in battle exactly on 14 Nov 1471.
So pot... kettle... blackness reigns
Start over.
-----Original Message-----
From: hsone <seal...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 4, 2012 11:31 pm
Subject: Re: From the BeeGees to Byron - corrected
And he died in battle exactly on 14 Nov 1471.
So pot... kettle... blackness reigns
Start over.
-----Original Message-----
From: hsone <seal...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 4, 2012 11:31 pm
Subject: Re: From the BeeGees to Byron - corrected
Wjhonson
Sep 5, 2012, 10:31:59 AM9/5/12
to seal...@gmail.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Margaret was not an infant in 1446. So when she was pardoned *as his WIFE* her age was not relevant whatsoever. The relevant point was that they were married. HE had to be an adult, SHE did not to be pardoned. Next point.
-----Original Message-----
From: hsone <seal...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 4, 2012 11:31 pm
Subject: Re: From the BeeGees to Byron - corrected
-----Original Message-----
From: hsone <seal...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 4, 2012 11:31 pm
Subject: Re: From the BeeGees to Byron - corrected
Alan Grey
Sep 6, 2012, 9:06:00 AM9/6/12
to Wjhonson, seal...@gmail.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
In actual fact Robert Harcourt certainly was born in 1410, as proved
in several records. The IPM of (his father) Thomas Harecourt, knight,
held at Stafford on 6 September 1420, acting on a writ of 14 August,
states that Robert Harecourt is the son and next heir and is aged 10
years and more [Cal. I.P.M., 6-10 Hen. V, 145-6 ]. (The inquisition
held at Woodstock on 5 September states the same [ibid.].)
Interestingly, the inquisition held at Market Bosworth on 17 September
states that he is 8 years and more [ibid.], but this is an error by
the jurors, as is made clear in a later record. Robert Harecourt
proved his age on 4 February 1432, when a number of witnesses attested
that he was born on 20 September 1410 [Cal. I.P.M., 6-10 Hen. VI,
384-5], thus legally establishing his age.
Alan R Grey
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> Richard Harcourt was certainly not born in 1410. We have no idea the year in which he was born.
> And he died in battle exactly on 14 Nov 1471.
>
> So pot... kettle... blackness reigns
> Start over.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
in several records. The IPM of (his father) Thomas Harecourt, knight,
held at Stafford on 6 September 1420, acting on a writ of 14 August,
states that Robert Harecourt is the son and next heir and is aged 10
years and more [Cal. I.P.M., 6-10 Hen. V, 145-6 ]. (The inquisition
held at Woodstock on 5 September states the same [ibid.].)
Interestingly, the inquisition held at Market Bosworth on 17 September
states that he is 8 years and more [ibid.], but this is an error by
the jurors, as is made clear in a later record. Robert Harecourt
proved his age on 4 February 1432, when a number of witnesses attested
that he was born on 20 September 1410 [Cal. I.P.M., 6-10 Hen. VI,
384-5], thus legally establishing his age.
Alan R Grey
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> Richard Harcourt was certainly not born in 1410. We have no idea the year in which he was born.
> And he died in battle exactly on 14 Nov 1471.
>
> So pot... kettle... blackness reigns
> Start over.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hsone <seal...@gmail.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tue, Sep 4, 2012 11:31 pm
> Subject: Re: From the BeeGees to Byron - corrected
>
>
> From: hsone <seal...@gmail.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tue, Sep 4, 2012 11:31 pm
> Subject: Re: From the BeeGees to Byron - corrected
>
>
John Higgins
Sep 6, 2012, 11:56:55 AM9/6/12
to
On Sep 5, 7:29 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> Richard Harcourt was certainly not born in 1410. We have no idea the year in which he was born.
> And he died in battle exactly on 14 Nov 1471.
>
> So pot... kettle... blackness reigns
> Start over.
>
Given the tone of this post, it's worth noting that Will Johnson
> Richard Harcourt was certainly not born in 1410. We have no idea the year in which he was born.
> And he died in battle exactly on 14 Nov 1471.
>
> So pot... kettle... blackness reigns
> Start over.
>
reaches a dubious milestone in this thread: his 10,000th post to Gen-
Med/SGM. Readers can make their own judgments as to the balance of
quality versus quantity in his contributions.
Wjhonson
Sep 6, 2012, 1:01:36 PM9/6/12
to jhigg...@yahoo.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Oh my the viper stings. Help help I've been poisoned.
However, John fails in an utter fashion, by not quoting that part of that post to *which* I was replying.
Which was disputing with me. The tone of my post *matches* (neigh I say fails to come up to) the level of that *tone* affected toward myself.
I dish out what I get. I don't believe in being "nice", and doubly not to those who aren't "nice" to me.
That's a sign of weakness.
I'm bold, I strike. The one who remains standing is the strongest.
Evolution. Darwin agrees with me.
You've failed, next caller.
TJ Booth
Sep 6, 2012, 2:55:00 PM9/6/12
to GenMedieval
John - Will's 10,000 posts is indeed a milestone meriting recognition -
thanks for noting it.
Will, without observant and at times valuable contributions from continuing
posters like you, this newsgroup would not be nearly so alive and
interesting. Spice - at least in moderation - adds flavor and not only
promotes but can provoke participation.
In defense of Darwin, he spoke in terms of species. He would never have said
'The one who remains standing is the strongest' since Darwin dealt with
communities (i.e 'the many'). It is not necessarily the strongest species
which survive either, since survival depends on many characteristics (and
luck).
Individuals instead share an inevitable different fate, as evidenced by the
growing list of valued but now deceased earlier newsgroup posters. Hopefully
you will have many more good posts to go before you, like them, are no
longer able to answer that next caller - until then, thanks for picking up
the phone.
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
To: <jhigg...@yahoo.com>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Will Johnson - quality or quantity?
>
> Oh my the viper stings. Help help I've been poisoned.
>
> However, John fails in an utter fashion, by not quoting that part of that
> post to *which* I was replying.
> Which was disputing with me. The tone of my post *matches* (neigh I say
> fails to come up to) the level of that *tone* affected toward myself.
>
> I dish out what I get. I don't believe in being "nice", and doubly not to
> those who aren't "nice" to me.
> That's a sign of weakness.
>
> I'm bold, I strike. The one who remains standing is the strongest.
> Evolution. Darwin agrees with me.
> You've failed, next caller.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Higgins <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Thu, Sep 6, 2012 9:00 am
> Subject: Will Johnson - quality or quantity?
>
>
thanks for noting it.
Will, without observant and at times valuable contributions from continuing
posters like you, this newsgroup would not be nearly so alive and
interesting. Spice - at least in moderation - adds flavor and not only
promotes but can provoke participation.
In defense of Darwin, he spoke in terms of species. He would never have said
'The one who remains standing is the strongest' since Darwin dealt with
communities (i.e 'the many'). It is not necessarily the strongest species
which survive either, since survival depends on many characteristics (and
luck).
Individuals instead share an inevitable different fate, as evidenced by the
growing list of valued but now deceased earlier newsgroup posters. Hopefully
you will have many more good posts to go before you, like them, are no
longer able to answer that next caller - until then, thanks for picking up
the phone.
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
To: <jhigg...@yahoo.com>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Will Johnson - quality or quantity?
>
> Oh my the viper stings. Help help I've been poisoned.
>
> However, John fails in an utter fashion, by not quoting that part of that
> post to *which* I was replying.
> Which was disputing with me. The tone of my post *matches* (neigh I say
> fails to come up to) the level of that *tone* affected toward myself.
>
> I dish out what I get. I don't believe in being "nice", and doubly not to
> those who aren't "nice" to me.
> That's a sign of weakness.
>
> I'm bold, I strike. The one who remains standing is the strongest.
> Evolution. Darwin agrees with me.
> You've failed, next caller.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Higgins <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Thu, Sep 6, 2012 9:00 am
> Subject: Will Johnson - quality or quantity?
>
>
0 new messages