Comprehensive descents from E3
wjhonson
descended from Edward III, King of England for say four generations or
five or ten or anything of that sort and with the documentary
evidence ?
I know there are works that list some, but my question is, do any of
them claim to comprehensively list all persons, with or without issue.
Kevin Bradford
Andrew Millard, contributor to the GenUKI project, gives the nod to Leo's site for the most comprehensive compilation of E3 descendants:
"Leo van de Pas in his website "Genealogics" gives as comprehensive a list of the descendants of Edward III as can probably be compiled at present. In the fifth generation he lists 321 descendants." A. Millard: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891
Here is a link to the E3 descendant listings:
http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00000811&tree=LEO
321 persons in the 5th generation of descent is, I'd suggest, as fairly inclusive a tally as we're likely to obtain up to that point in Edward's descendancy. Links to pedigree extensions appear next to many of the names in the above chart, enabling the researcher to trace the king's progeny to the colonial era and in some cases to modern times.
Millard's conclusions as to the actual numbers of Edward III's descendants in the modern world appears, to those who research medieval genealogy on a regular basis (which I trust would include most of the members of this list) fairly accurate: "There is an extremely high probabilty that a modern English person with predominantly English ancestry descends from Edward III, at a very minimum over 99%, and more likely very close to 100%. The number of descendants of Edward III must therefore include nearly all of the population of England, and probably much of the populations of the rest of the UK and Eire, as well as many millions in the USA, former British colonies and Europe, so 100 million seems a conservative estimate. Documenting one's own descent from Edward III is, however, another matter!"
Best regards,
Kevin Bradford
Blog: Plantagenet Dynasty Genealogy & History, http://plantagenetdynasty.blogspot.com/
> From: wjho...@aol.com> Subject: Comprehensive descents from E3> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:27:07 -0700> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com> > Is there a work that purports to list every single person who has ever> descended from Edward III, King of England for say four generations or> five or ten or anything of that sort and with the documentary> evidence ?> > I know there are works that list some, but my question is, do any of> them claim to comprehensively list all persons, with or without issue.> > -------------------------------> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008
Nathaniel Taylor
Kevin Bradford <plantag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Andrew Millard, contributor to the GenUKI project, gives the nod to Leo's
> site for the most comprehensive compilation of E3 descendants:
>
> "Leo van de Pas in his website "Genealogics" gives as comprehensive a list of
> the descendants of Edward III as can probably be compiled at present. In the
> fifth generation he lists 321 descendants." A. Millard:
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891
Er, interesting as it is, the New York Times article via MSNBC doesn't
seem to be the right link. Perhaps you had two browsers open when you
made this post? The real URL for Andrew Millard's essay mentioning
Leo's site is:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/EdwardIIIDescent.php
I agree with his conclusion, though I think he misuses a constant rate
of 'cousin marriage' from an anthropological article (the term 'cousin'
used in the constant is never defined, and however defined I don't think
a predictor of 'cousin marriage' should remain constant over time in
such a scenario).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
Kevin Bradford
Hmmm... I must say, though, the NYT article is certainly timely, even if OT...
KB> From: nlta...@nltaylor.net> Subject: Re: Comprehensive descents from E3> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:02:02 -0400> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com> > In article <mailman.143.12248654...@rootsweb.com>,> Kevin Bradford <plantag...@hotmail.com> wrote:> > > Andrew Millard, contributor to the GenUKI project, gives the nod to Leo's > > site for the most comprehensive compilation of E3 descendants:> > > > "Leo van de Pas in his website "Genealogics" gives as comprehensive a list of > > the descendants of Edward III as can probably be compiled at present. In the > > fifth generation he lists 321 descendants." A. Millard: > >> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891> > Er, interesting as it is, the New York Times article via MSNBC doesn't > seem to be the right link. Perhaps you had two browsers open when you > made this post? The real URL for Andrew Millard's essay mentioning > Leo's site is:> > http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/EdwardIIIDescent.php> > I agree with his conclusion, though I think he misuses a constant rate > of 'cousin marriage' from an anthropological article (the term 'cousin' > used in the constant is never defined, and however defined I don't think > a predictor of 'cousin marriage' should remain constant over time in > such a scenario).> > Nat Taylor> a genealogist's sketchbook: > http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/> > -------------------------------> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008
Nathaniel Taylor
<2db5317e-867f-4307...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> Is there a work that purports to list every single person who has ever
> descended from Edward III, King of England for say four generations or
> five or ten or anything of that sort and with the documentary
> evidence ?
Are you not aware of:
Melville Henry Massue, marquis de Ruvigny et Raineval, _The Plantagenet
roll of the blood royal; being a complete table of all the descendants
now living of Edward III, King of England_, 4 vols. (London, 1905-11;
reprint Baltimore 1994).
marianne dillow
I haven't kept up with these postings so I don't know the whole content.
I descend from Edward III by the following generations:
i. Edward III and Queen Philippa
ii. John of Gaunt and Catherine Swynford DeRoet
iii. Joan Beaufort and Ralph Neville
iv. Edward Neville and Elizabeth Beauchamp
v. George Neville and Margaret Fienne
vi. Elizabeth Neville and Thomas Berkeley
vii. Elizabeth Berkekey and George Herbert
vii. Cecilia Herbert and Thomas Morgan
viii. James Morgan and Mary Jenkyn
viii. Evan ap James Morgan and Maud unknown
ix. Jane Morgan and Thomas Ragland
x. Evan Ragland and Susanna Pettus...
Evan Ragland was the first to come to America. He descends from Sir Thomas ap William who started building Raglan Castle in the 1440's and by the way they intermarried three sons of Sir Thomas ap William are all my grandfathers.. Jevan ap Thomas married Margaret Grant; Howell ap Thomas goes to Carne and Kemeys lines, and Sir William ap thomas who took the surname of Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke. This lineage of course spreads out to the surnames mentioned here but my Ragland cousins made trips to Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, south Wales to Somerset Co., England before they located to New Kent Co., Virginia and was lucky to obtain records and have published two large volumes on the Raglands. It was about the 5th generation where Robert Ragland took the surname through Jevan...
My Mother also has another line I am working on now going to Richard Eltonhead and Anne Sutton.in England. I have just ordered "Plantagenet Ancestry" from Douglas Richardson and should be receiving it shortly.
Best regards,
Marianne Dillow
Illinois
--- On Fri, 10/24/08, Kevin Bradford <plantag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Kevin Bradford <plantag...@hotmail.co Subject: RE: Comprehensive descents from E3
To: "wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Date: Friday, October 24, 2008, 11:23 AM
Andrew Millard, contributor to the GenUKI project, gives the nod to Leo's
site for the most comprehensive compilation of E3 descendants:
"Leo van de Pas in his website "Genealogics" gives as
comprehensive a list of the descendants of Edward III as can probably be
compiled at present. In the fifth generation he lists 321 descendants." A.
Millard: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350891
jhigg...@yahoo.com
> In article
> <2db5317e-867f-4307-a2a0-2cb678c36...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
> wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Is there a work that purports to list every single person who has ever
> > descended from Edward III, King of England for say four generations or
> > five or ten or anything of that sort and with the documentary
> > evidence ?
>
> Are you not aware of:
>
> Melville Henry Massue, marquis de Ruvigny et Raineval, _The Plantagenet
> roll of the blood royal; being a complete table of all the descendants
> now living of Edward III, King of England_, 4 vols. (London, 1905-11;
> reprint Baltimore 1994).
>
> Nat Taylor
> a genealogist's sketchbook: http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
Although Ruvigny subtitled his work "a complete table of all the
descendants now living of Edward III", he lived long enough to
complete only five volumes (not four) and notes in the final published
volume that "future volumes" (not completed) would cover the
descendants of John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley, Thomas of Woodstock,
and Isabel the wife of Enguerrand de Coucy, as well as the remianing
descendants of Lionel, Duke of Clarence (part II of the Mortimer-Percy
volume). So, there's a lot of ground not covered by Ruvigny. Ruvigny
also limits his work to those descendants who themselves had
descendants, and also to descendants via legitimate lines only, which
narrows the work considerably.
Finally, although the work is certainly extensive even in its
uncompleted state, there is no documentation whatever provided for any
of it. Although it appears to be largely reliable despite the lack of
sources, there are definitely errors and omissions in it.
FWIW, a fairly extensive effort to extend Ruvigny's work (but without
any supporting documentation) can be seen at:
http://www.angelfire.com/realm3/ruvignyplus/
Of course, Ruvigny's work itself is not (yet) available on-line
(presumably because GPC has the copyright on the reprint edition of
1994), so Will won't find this reference to be of use, since he
doesn't make use of those antiquated institutions we call
libraries! :-)
marianne dillow
That must be true as my descent is from John the Gaunt.
Marianne Dillow
--- On Fri, 10/24/08, jhigg...@yahoo.com <jhigg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nathaniel Taylor
<9a6dc0c6-2ebc-4b3b...@z18g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 24, 1:05 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <2db5317e-867f-4307-a2a0-2cb678c36...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Is there a work that purports to list every single person who has ever
> > > descended from Edward III, King of England for say four generations or
> > > five or ten or anything of that sort and with the documentary
> > > evidence ?
> >
> > Are you not aware of:
> >
> > Melville Henry Massue, marquis de Ruvigny et Raineval, The Plantagenet
> > roll of the blood royal; being a complete table of all the descendants
> > now living of Edward III, King of England , 4 vols. (London, 1905-11;
> > reprint Baltimore 1994).
> >
> > Nat Taylor
> > a genealogist's sketchbook: http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
>
> Although Ruvigny subtitled his work "a complete table of all the
> descendants now living of Edward III", he lived long enough to
> complete only five volumes (not four) and notes in the final published
> volume that "future volumes" (not completed) would cover the
> descendants of John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley, Thomas of Woodstock,
> and Isabel the wife of Enguerrand de Coucy, as well as the remianing
> descendants of Lionel, Duke of Clarence (part II of the Mortimer-Percy
> volume). So, there's a lot of ground not covered by Ruvigny. Ruvigny
> also limits his work to those descendants who themselves had
> descendants, and also to descendants via legitimate lines only, which
> narrows the work considerably.
>
> Finally, although the work is certainly extensive even in its
> uncompleted state, there is no documentation whatever provided for any
> of it. Although it appears to be largely reliable despite the lack of
> sources, there are definitely errors and omissions in it.
Ruvigny is a drop in the bucket, but I wasn't sure whether Will knew
about it.
> FWIW, a fairly extensive effort to extend Ruvigny's work (but without
> any supporting documentation) can be seen at:
> http://www.angelfire.com/realm3/ruvignyplus/
I hadn't seen this site. Thanks!
> Of course, Ruvigny's work itself is not (yet) available on-line
> (presumably because GPC has the copyright on the reprint edition of
> 1994), so Will won't find this reference to be of use, since he
> doesn't make use of those antiquated institutions we call
> libraries! :-)
Just because someone reprinted it in the 1990s doesn't put the original
volumes under copyright! Perfectly eligible for full-text on
archive.org or googlebooks, isn't it? It would violate copyright to
scan the GPC reprint, but not the original volumes.
WJho...@aol.com
would only include lines that had descendents alive at that point right?
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
no registration required and great graphics – check it out!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=
http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/24/2008 2:01:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
Of course, Ruvigny's work itself is not (yet) available on-line
(presumably because GPC has the copyright on the reprint edition of
1994), so Will won't find this reference to be of use, since he
doesn't make use of those antiquated institutions we call
libraries! :-)>>
Stop being silly.
_http://books.google.com/books?id=0aUD4NqGYqAC&dq=now+living+Edward+III&prints
ec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=6Kk_ucB9oq&sig=c0VPcTfeXjDFikxpEDE15AVgJao&hl=en&s
a=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA421,M1_
(http://books.google.com/books?id=0aUD4NqGYqAC&dq=now+living+Edward+III&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=6
Kk_ucB9oq&sig=c0VPcTfeXjDFikxpEDE15AVgJao&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&c
t=result#PPA421,M1)
WJho...@aol.com
mdil...@verizon.net writes:
v. George Neville and Margaret Fienne
vi. Elizabeth Neville and Thomas Berkeley
vii. Elizabeth Berkekey and George Herbert>>
-------------------
What is your source for this section?
Tony Hoskins
vi. Elizabeth Neville and Thomas Berkeley
vii. Elizabeth Berkekey and George Herbert>>"
-------------------
"What is your source for this section?"
I imagine her source was the following (anyone out there seen it?):
The Raglands: The History of a British-American Family
By Charles J. Ragland
Published by Ragland, 1978
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
Sonoma County Archivist
Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
marianne dillow
I got my info from the Ragland volumes. Charles J. Ragland and other Ragland cousins went to Somerset County, England and Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, south Wales several years ago and found records and put their findings in the two volumes and published them.
Marianne Dillow
--- On Fri, 10/24/08, Tony Hoskins <hos...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
From: Tony Hoskins <hos...@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
Subject: Re: Comprehensive descents from E3
WJho...@aol.com
details the extended-descendents of Edward III" ?
I don't think Leo has ever stated that his list is comprehensive or that he
has even plumbed all the obvious sources, let alone the more obscure ones.
And I don't think he's ever stated that his list is authoritative for this
purpose.
I'll have to compare what he has, to what I have and see if I can spot any
missing.
Well I mean there are certainly going to be some missing, the question being
how far down-line do you have to come to find one that Leo doesn't show?
If a person were to produce a book of just the 321 descendents mentioned,
each with a mini bio of say one page or less, would anyone buy it?
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
vii. Cecilia Herbert and Thomas Morgan
viii. James Morgan and Mary Jenkyn>>
------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the break.
_http://books.google.com/books?id=wEAIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA10_
(http://books.google.com/books?id=wEAIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA10)
Unfortunately for the Ragland family, the Will of Thomas Morgan survives.
In addition we have the inheritence of the eldest son William Morgan who
d.s.p. and his HEIR was his niece Anne.
End of story.
Ian Goddard
As far as I can make out a cousin marriage seems to be taken as any
mating which brings together lines of descent from a common ancestor.
Without having access to the cited work of Smith 2001 one can't be sure
how this was assessed. How far back does a birth brief go? A marriage
which doesn't appear to be a cousin marriage when assessed over the
previous 3 generations may be if assessed over 10 (assuming all the data
for 10 generations were available). Even worse, the rate of convergence
per generation would be greater at an earlier time when populations were
smaller overall and the geographical and social range from within which
partners might be chosen would also be smaller. Overall it seems likely
that the frequency of cousin marriage is likely to be a minimum estimate.
There's also a discrepancy between the rates of increase of Edward III
descendants in Leo's 5 generation data and the rate of increase in the
population as a whole. Presumably this can be accounted for by their
occupying the higher levels of society. However the more widely
successive generations became incorporated in society the more the rate
of increase would tend towards that of the general population.
It's not clear whether Millard's more conservative estimates take into
account the above factors. Even if they do his calculations depend on
the assumption quoted from Wachter: "wide diffusion of ancestors
throughout society and the country by 1600.". "Wide" is not the same as
"even". The ancestors of a 1947 baby whose ancestors were ag labs as
far as the eye can see (say 1700) is less likely to have encountered a
descendant of Edward III than one whose ancestors were minor gentry.
ISTM that it's more likely that many individuals will have multiple
lines of descent whilst many others will have none at all.
--
Ian
Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
Nathaniel Taylor
Ian Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Are you aware of Humphrys, Chang, and Rohde's modeling of the 'most
recent common ancestor' question? The take-away assumption is that for
European populations, the probability that a particular current national
population, in its entirety, would all have descents from a particular
prolific medieval monarch essentially apporaches 1, even for someone as
recent as Edward III given England's relative size and relative
homogeneity. This has been aired here numerous times; I wrote a blog
bit on it back in 03:
http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/archives/9
and I know Rohde has published more since then.
Nathaniel Taylor
WJho...@aol.com wrote:
> But Nat, a listing of who is "now living" wouldn't be comprehensive. It
> would only include lines that had descendents alive at that point right?
> So is the answer "No, no one has ever produced a print source that simply
> details the extended-descendents of Edward III" ?
>
> I don't think Leo has ever stated that his list is comprehensive or that he
> has even plumbed all the obvious sources, let alone the more obscure ones.
> And I don't think he's ever stated that his list is authoritative for this
> purpose.
>
> I'll have to compare what he has, to what I have and see if I can spot any
> missing.
> Well I mean there are certainly going to be some missing, the question being
> how far down-line do you have to come to find one that Leo doesn't show?
>
> If a person were to produce a book of just the 321 descendents mentioned,
> each with a mini bio of say one page or less, would anyone buy it?
Of course Ruvigny is selective AND incomplete in its intended scope, and
Leo's database is also limited to published sources he has used. There
is nothing for Edward III like, say, K. F. Werner's "Die Nachkommen
Karls des Grossen bis um das Jahr 1000."
I'm not sure whether a book-form genealogy of all the near descendants
of a British monarch (down to, say, a certain date or a certain number
of generations) exists for any monarch other than Victoria. However,
I'm not sure such a book, even for Edward III, would have much of a
market. One possible comparison is to the interminable _Cahiers de
Saint Louis_.
jhigg...@yahoo.com
> In article <mailman.160.1224885594.2545.gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>,
Here are two books tracing the descendants of two later British
monarchs:
Arnold McNaughton, The Book of Kings: A Royal Genealogy (3 vols.,
1973) [descendants of George I]
Arthur C. Addington, The Royal House of Stuart (3 vols, 1968-76)
[descendants of James VI of Scotland and I of England]
The latter has been extended substantially by Paul Theroff in his on-
line files.
Nathaniel Taylor
<bf7a4089-fa38-46c2...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 24, 5:11 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure whether a book-form genealogy of all the near descendants
> > of a British monarch (down to, say, a certain date or a certain number
> > of generations) exists for any monarch other than Victoria. However,
> > I'm not sure such a book, even for Edward III, would have much of a
> > market. One possible comparison is to the interminable Cahiers de
> > Saint Louis .
>
> Here are two books tracing the descendants of two later British
> monarchs:
>
> Arnold McNaughton, The Book of Kings: A Royal Genealogy (3 vols.,
> 1973) [descendants of George I]
>
> Arthur C. Addington, The Royal House of Stuart (3 vols, 1968-76)
> [descendants of James VI of Scotland and I of England]
>
> The latter has been extended substantially by Paul Theroff in his on-
> line files.
Great! After I posted I vaguely remembered a Hanoverian work but not
the Stuart one, and I havn't ever looked at either of these. What would
you say about their quality?
Ian Goddard
The difficulty I have with modeling approaches in general is that they
are, essentially, hypotheses and I tend to regard them as hypotheses
which have not yet been falsified. (I assume that most economic models
in use a couple of years ago hadn't then been falsified - they have now!)
This isn't as cynical as it sounds, rather it's the approach of the
scientist saying that the only good test for a hypothesis is an
empirical one which is capable of demonstrating the hypothesis to be
false if it is.
In the cases in point how would one do this? The only test capable of
falsifying such a hypothesis would be to take a number of individuals at
random and, in each case trace *all* the lines back to the time of
proposed ancestor looking for a statistically significant number of
individuals with no hits. The practical difficulty, of course, is
finding enough individuals for whom a complete set of ancestors can be
traced so far back. My own experience is that lines tend to peter out
in the mid 1700s due to ambiguous names or under-recording and, given
some of the queries posted on s.g.b many people have trouble getting
some of their lines through the 1800s. In such circumstances such
hypotheses appear to be untestable in practical terms.
Diana Gale Matthiesen
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Ian Goddard
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:56 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Comprehensive descents from E3
>
> that they are, essentially, hypotheses and I tend to regard
> them as hypotheses which have not yet been falsified. (I
> assume that most economic models in use a couple of years
> ago hadn't then been falsified - they have now!)
>
Actually, a different phenomenon is taking place: that of being ignorant of
history and, thus, having to relive it. "Supply-side" economics and deregulation
didn't work under Reagan and, applied with even greater abandon under Bush, have
failed again, all the more dramatically. I just wish other people's ignorance
-- and greed -- only damaged themselves and not everyone else. Well, at least
this failure is sufficiently dramatic that even a dodo will relegate this
economic theory to the dust bin.
Elect stupid people to run the country, you get stupid policies.
>
> --
> Ian
>
>
A JACOBSON
Our current economic disaster is not the sole beit noir of our government alone -- this disaster is world-wide! You're right when you point the finger at a willful ignorance of history. Now let us hope that the world economies actually read that history, so we don't get 3 years of "free trade alone will solve all our problems." I'm glad my mother, a child of the Great Depression, died two years ago -- these times would elicit such fear, panic and dispair I'm not sure it would have been survivable.
> From: Dia...@dgmweb.net
> To: GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: OT economics
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:41:31 -0400
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Ian Goddard
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:56 AM
> > To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> > Subject: Re: Comprehensive descents from E3
> >
> > The difficulty I have with modeling approaches in general is
> > that they are, essentially, hypotheses and I tend to regard
> > them as hypotheses which have not yet been falsified. (I
> > assume that most economic models in use a couple of years
> > ago hadn't then been falsified - they have now!)
> >
> <snip>
>
> Actually, a different phenomenon is taking place: that of being ignorant of
> history and, thus, having to relive it. "Supply-side" economics and deregulation
> didn't work under Reagan and, applied with even greater abandon under Bush, have
> failed again, all the more dramatically. I just wish other people's ignorance
> -- and greed -- only damaged themselves and not everyone else. Well, at least
> this failure is sufficiently dramatic that even a dodo will relegate this
> economic theory to the dust bin.
>
> Elect stupid people to run the country, you get stupid policies.
>
> >
> > --
> > Ian
> >
>
> >
>
>
Diana Gale Matthiesen
that the crisis wouldn't have happened if the government hadn't repealed the
regulations keeping our financial institutions in check and the economic
disparities wouldn't be happening if the philosophy of a "trickle-down" economy
hadn't been re-embraced. And yes, I agree that "free trade" is not the
solution, it's part of the problem.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of A JACOBSON
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:55 PM
> To: dia...@dgmweb.net; gen-medieval@ rootsweb.com
> Subject: RE: OT economics
>
>
> Our current economic disaster is not the sole beit noir of
> our government alone -- this disaster is world-wide! You're
> right when you point the finger at a willful ignorance of
> history. Now let us hope that the world economies actually
> read that history, so we don't get 3 years of "free trade
> alone will solve all our problems." I'm glad my mother, a
> child of the Great Depression, died two years ago -- these
> times would elicit such fear, panic and dispair I'm not sure
> it would have been survivable.
>
> > From: Dia...@dgmweb.net
> > To: GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com
> > Subject: OT economics
> > Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:41:31 -0400
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Ian Goddard
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:56 AM
> > > To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> > > Subject: Re: Comprehensive descents from E3
> > >
> > > The difficulty I have with modeling approaches in general is
> > > that they are, essentially, hypotheses and I tend to regard
> > > them as hypotheses which have not yet been falsified. (I
> > > assume that most economic models in use a couple of years
> > > ago hadn't then been falsified - they have now!)
> > >
Ian Goddard
The point is that finance ministries, including the UK Treasury use
economic models to determine, or at least justify, policy. It seems
extremely unlikely that they would have maintained their policies of the
last few years if the models had been predicting recent events.
It's not reassuring, however, to find economics pundits misusing the
term "negative feedback".
Kay Allen
I must disagree with you. I am old enough to have lived history, starting with end of WWII, so I feel
a certain ability to expound. MY BA was in social science, so I know a little about poli sci, history, economics, ad nauseous.
I don't remember things quite the same way. This whole situation started a decade ago. There was legislation to
increase home ownership. And there was much encouraging, browbeating and blackmailing for banks to lend to people
who couldn't afford them once or twice the arm readjusted.
At the end of Clinton's administration, there was an economic downturn and then 9/11 happened. America made a great
comeback. Then in the mid 2000s, the serpent snuck back into the garden, Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae were riding high
on the hog. In 2005 and 2007, legislation was proposed to rein in these august bodies. They were not read out of committee
due to Democratic Party resistance [mainly because these Senators were drinking heavily from the cash cow.]
Yes, investment banks took these dud deeds and packaged them. But a one-time head of Goldman Sachs was a Democratic
Senator from New Jersey and is now the Governor of New Jersey. I don't see that state flourishing. California is a forlorn state
with a RINO governor and a Democratic Majority and is more than 14 billion in the hole. At on time, there were not enough moving vans for those leaving the state, as not enough vans were bringing people into the state.
People have very short memories. They don't remember the better times, because they are now in the position of having to "deprive"
themselves. Poor babies!
If you think wealth redistribution is the palliative, I think you will be sorely disappointed. Investment will dry up, making this credit
crunch look like a real picnic. Do you remember interest at 21%? I do. Jobs will disappear in a flash making our current unemployment situation look paltry. It still hovers around 6%. Do you remember the days when it hit 10-12%?
As for NAFTA being repealed, that would not be the good thing you think it would be. Right now in the countries who are waiting on approval, their goods come in with no duty, but ours are not sold into that country on the same favorable terms. Also, if the
agreements for Canada and Mexico are renegotiated, it will just show that are word is not our bond.
I don't think your mother would have been too horrendously afraid. The Great Depression was considerably worse than this
situation is ever likely to become. People were truly deprived and starving; but they did survive, because they had the pluck and determination to survive. America survived. I believe that this situation can, and will, be survived. But we can't play victim,
crying "woe is me" and wanting the government to bail us out. And the New Deal didn't bring us out of it. It was WWII,
when we had to rev up the military economy. Yes, there was rationing, but Europe was in far worse shape. We were able
to help rebuild Europe with the Marshall Plan, because our economy had improved.
I will be very afraid when I see Gov. Corzine picking apples and selling them on the corner of Wall and Broad Sts. I live near enough to RR tracks to see them; there are no hoboes. There is no "Dust Bowl". The Central Valley is still producing. There is no famine. Things are not fantabulous, but they could be considerably worse.
The only thing with which I can agree, is that if you elect stupid politicians, you will get stupid policies. The trio of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, is the most frightening prospect to me. I see another Jimmy Carter-type administration, which my husband and I
survived, barely. But we will know in 4 years, how everything plays out.
politically incorrectly yours,
K
PS If anyone wishes to belabor the point, let's do it off-line. We've already consumed more than enough bandwidth.
----- Original Message ----
From: Diana Gale Matthiesen <Dia...@dgmweb.net>
To: GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:32:22 AM
Subject: RE: OT economics
Yes, of course, anything this complicated has many causes, but the fact remains
that the crisis wouldn't have happened if the government hadn't repealed the
regulations keeping our financial institutions in check and the economic
disparities wouldn't be happening if the philosophy of a "trickle-down" economy
hadn't been re-embraced. And yes, I agree that "free trade" is not the
solution, it's part of the problem.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of A JACOBSON
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:55 PM
> To: dia...@dgmweb.net; gen-medieval@ rootsweb.com
> Subject: RE: OT economics
>
>
> Our current economic disaster is not the sole beit noir of
> our government alone -- this disaster is world-wide! You're
> right when you point the finger at a willful ignorance of
> history. Now let us hope that the world economies actually
> read that history, so we don't get 3 years of "free trade
> alone will solve all our problems." I'm glad my mother, a
> child of the Great Depression, died two years ago -- these
> times would elicit such fear, panic and dispair I'm not sure
> it would have been survivable.
>
> > From: Dia...@dgmweb.net
> > To: GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com
> > Subject: OT economics
> > Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:41:31 -0400
> >
girlvol
(redistribution of wealth) has ever worked.
t...@clearwire.net
As bad as the tone here has been over the last several weeks when
discussing medieval genealogy, the last thing we need is to inject
modern politics into it. Believe me, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Nothing will turn this list into a cesspool more quickly. As strongly
as you feel about these issues, you can be guaranteed that there is
someone else out there that feels just as strongly the other way, and
unlike medieval genealogy, there are no facts, no documentary sources,
just a lot of opinions, usually shouted. The medieval history group
has been buried under a pile of such nonsense, such that less than 1
in 10 messages has anything to do with the topic, and it would only
invite the same here were this discussion of current events to
continue.
Diana Gale Matthiesen
the economy, and I couldn't resist replying, especially as I disagreed with what
they said. I will resist replying again, but implore people not to open the
door by mentioning anything political. When you're ankle deep in gasoline,
don't strike a match, even in jest.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of t...@clearwire.net
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:39 PM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: OT economics
>
>