George Rex
William Addams Reitwiesner
I'm cross-posting this message to both soc.genealogy.medieval and
alt.talk.royalty because this topic sprang up independently on both groups.
The topic is the claim that George III was married to Hannah Lightfoot
before he married Charlotte of Mecklenburg, and that by Hannah he had a son
named George Rex who moved to South Africa.
George Rex was an important person in South African history on his own, and
several biographies of him have appeared, including Sanni Metelerkamp,
*George Rex of Knysa* [Cape Town: Timmins, 1955] and C. H. Price, *George
Rex, King or Esquire* [Cape Town: Timmins, 1973]. It's been a dozen or so
years since I read those books, but as I recall both dismissed his alleged
Royal parentage. If anyone's interested, and doesn't have access to those
(and other) books, I can pursue the matter further.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
ccz...@szn1.nott.ac.uk
William Addams Reitwiesner wrote:
> The topic is the claim that George III was married to Hannah Lightfoot
> before he married Charlotte of Mecklenburg, and that by Hannah he had a son
> named George Rex who moved to South Africa.
> George Rex was an important person in South African history on his own, and
> several biographies of him have appeared, including Sanni Metelerkamp,
> *George Rex of Knysa* [Cape Town: Timmins, 1955] and C. H. Price, *George
> Rex, King or Esquire* [Cape Town: Timmins, 1973]. It's been a dozen or so
> years since I read those books, but as I recall both dismissed his alleged
> Royal parentage.
A view reinforced, I thought, by a recent television programme (though
that was not the line which the programme itself took, I should add).
Graham Milne
William Addams Reitwiesner <wr...@127.0.0.1> wrote in article
<33c072d2...@news.erols.com>...
> I'm cross-posting this message to both soc.genealogy.medieval and
> alt.talk.royalty because this topic sprang up independently on both
groups.
>
> before he married Charlotte of Mecklenburg, and that by Hannah he had a
son
> named George Rex who moved to South Africa.
>
> George Rex was an important person in South African history on his own,
and
> several biographies of him have appeared, including Sanni Metelerkamp,
> *George Rex of Knysa* [Cape Town: Timmins, 1955] and C. H. Price, *George
> Rex, King or Esquire* [Cape Town: Timmins, 1973]. It's been a dozen or
so
> years since I read those books, but as I recall both dismissed his
alleged
those
> (and other) books, I can pursue the matter further.
>
>
> William Addams Reitwiesner
> wr...@erols.com
>
'Britain's Royal Families' by Alison Weir says:-
'George III is alleged to have married secretly, on 17th April 1759, a
Quakeress called Hannah Lightfoot, daughter of a Wapping shoemaker, who is
said to have borne him three children. Documents relating to the alleged
marriage, bearing the Prince's signature, were impounded and examined in
1866 by the Attorney General [the UK government senior legal officer].
Learned opinion at the time leaned to the view that these documents were
genuine. They were then placed in the Royal Archives at Windsor. In 1910
permission was refused a would-be author to see them.'
Rgds
Graham Milne
Grant Menzies
wr...@127.0.0.1 (William Addams Reitwiesner) wrote:
>I'm cross-posting this message to both soc.genealogy.medieval and
>alt.talk.royalty because this topic sprang up independently on both groups.
>The topic is the claim that George III was married to Hannah Lightfoot
>before he married Charlotte of Mecklenburg, and that by Hannah he had a son
>named George Rex who moved to South Africa.
>George Rex was an important person in South African history on his own, and
>several biographies of him have appeared, including Sanni Metelerkamp,
>*George Rex of Knysa* [Cape Town: Timmins, 1955] and C. H. Price, *George
>Rex, King or Esquire* [Cape Town: Timmins, 1973]. It's been a dozen or so
>years since I read those books, but as I recall both dismissed his alleged
>Royal parentage. If anyone's interested, and doesn't have access to those
>(and other) books, I can pursue the matter further.
Is there anything to the claim, mentioned in John Masters' biography
of Jacques Casanova, that his brother Francesco Casanova might have
been the illegitimate son of George II, to whom the boy's mother was
mistress around the time of his conception and birth? I realize
Zanetta got around, but.... it's intriguing to say the least!
G M Menzies
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"It was written of him that 'he never
thought of anything but pleasure', but
this was not entirely true, because
he was also often occupied with plots,
intrigues and idle gossip."
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Conrod Mercer
Greetings William Addams Reitwiesner,
You wrote:
> The topic is the claim that George III was married to Hannah Lightfoot
> before he married Charlotte of Mecklenburg, and that by Hannah he had a son
> named George Rex who moved to South Africa.
>
> George Rex was an important person in South African history on his own, and
> several biographies of him have appeared, including Sanni Metelerkamp,
> *George Rex of Knysa* [Cape Town: Timmins, 1955] and C. H. Price, *George
> Rex, King or Esquire* [Cape Town: Timmins, 1973]. It's been a dozen or so
> years since I read those books, but as I recall both dismissed his alleged
> Royal parentage. If anyone's interested, and doesn't have access to those
> (and other) books, I can pursue the matter further.
At last, something that I can respond to :)
I had a quick look in my Dictionary of South African Bibliography,
Vol II, page 590 - which has quite a bit of information on George
Rex.
According to the section on him he was born in London, England in
August 1765 and died at Melkhoutkraal, on the Knysna lagoon on the
3rd April 1839.
He was a merchant and landed proprietor, the eldest of the four
children of John Rex ( - 1788), a prosperous Whitechapel brewer, and
his wife Sarah.
The article states further .... "Rumours that Rex was the eldest son
of George III of England by a morganatic union with a Quaker, Hannah
Lightfoot, were current during Rex's lifetime and persist today as a
family legend. It need only be stated that these rumours are as yet
unsuported by a shred of acceptable evidence, although efforts have
been made at various times to uncover documentary evidence for this
picturesque family legend."
The article gives a great deal other information about George Rex's
life, his relationships and his children.
If anyone is interested in any aspect of his life I will gladly
supply additional information.
Regards
Conrod Mercer
28 Hosking Street, Brenthurst, Brakpan, 1541 Republic of South Africa
eMail : mer...@global.co.za
http://home.global.co.za/~mercon/
William Addams Reitwiesner
ccz...@szn1.nott.ac.uk wrote:
>William Addams Reitwiesner wrote:
>
>> The topic is the claim that George III was married to Hannah Lightfoot
>> before he married Charlotte of Mecklenburg, and that by Hannah he had a son
>> named George Rex who moved to South Africa.
>
>> George Rex was an important person in South African history on his own, and
>> several biographies of him have appeared, including Sanni Metelerkamp,
>> *George Rex of Knysa* [Cape Town: Timmins, 1955] and C. H. Price, *George
>> Rex, King or Esquire* [Cape Town: Timmins, 1973]. It's been a dozen or so
>> years since I read those books, but as I recall both dismissed his alleged
>> Royal parentage.
>
>A view reinforced, I thought, by a recent television programme (though
>that was not the line which the programme itself took, I should add).
I haven't seen the program, but a friend pointed out an article in *The
Sunday Telegraph* of June 29, 1997, p. 20 (by Tim Reid). This article
shows that the evidence used by the program to support the claim of the
marriage of George III to Hannah Lightfoot were the forgeries presented
during the sensational 1866 trial "Ryves and Ryves v. the Attorney General"
(though the article, and I assume the program, neither identifies the trial
nor acknowledges that the documents were found to have been forged).
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Louis Epstein
William Addams Reitwiesner (wr...@207.172.3.53) wrote:
And the evidence that they were forgeries is clear and convincing?
Bernard & Faye Hall
The following is an article from the Christchurch Press (new Zealand)
A British documentary team has uncovered that the 18th century monarch
King George III secretly married, before he ascended to the throne and
wed Queen Charlotte.
The team said the clandestine union produced two or three sons,
including George Rex, who sailed into Cape Town in 1797, where he was
given a Royal warrant.
While the news was new to Britain, it is apparently already well known
in family circles in South Africa and the South Pacific.
Frank Bunce (NZ All Black) and his great uncle, long time Niue premier
Sir Robert Rex, were aware of reports that they had blue blood running
back to George Rex, and therefore the British Royal Family.
Bunce a former rubbish collector turned professional rugby player, said
he first heard of the link when he toured South Africa with the All
Blacks in 1992 "An uncle or a cousin there told me that I was a relative
and he then proceeded to tell me the exact same story" he said.
When he first heard the tale, Bunce thought it was a bit of a laugh. It
was a nice enough story and I just wondered how on earth it could be
true.
I couldnt really see a link between an atoll like Niue and the once King
of England. Then my sister got a family tree and it sort of related to
the same thing.
Another family member, Pastor Stan Rex, of Auckland said King Georges
clandestine marriage to Yorkshire draper Hannah Lightfoot actually
produced three sons - George, John and Henry.
The story goes that the mother and her children were banished to South
Africa and given large amounts of money to keep quiet.
Although the family were erased from Royal histories they were given the
name REX, which is latin for King.
Later in life the sons went their seperate ways - George stayed in South
Africa, Henry went to Utah, and John headed to Australia, where he
became an early govenor general.
Robert Rex, the son of Sir Robert, said his father, who died in 1992,
never talked about his lineage. His fathers books and documents relating
to the Rex line were treated as "sacred"
While he still lives in Niue, daughter Pauline Rex is studying in
Auckland - one of 300 to 400 descendants of George Rex living in New
Zealand. Ends.
This article sparked my call for further info on the newsgroup, my wife
is related to Sir Robert Rex..hence the interest in the first instance.
Bernard S Hall bsh...@ihug.co.nz
Susan Shannon
Last week (July 2nd or 3rd) on A&E's Biography they did the biography in
George III and did include some of the information you're discussing.
>William Addams Reitwiesner
>wr...@erols.com
>
>
Susan Shannon
Orlando
http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/s/h/a/susan-h-shannon/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Researching Arnold, Brewster, Carpenter,
Drowne, Greene, Hill, Morse, Piper, Rhodes,
Rice, Russell, Stafford, Turner, Whipple, Whitney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jean Ohai
Henry is not found in *Pioneers and Prominent Men in Utah*. There is a
bio of a William Rex (1844-?) at the Utah State Historical Society.
Jean Ohai
jean...@worldnet.att.net
Bernard & Faye Hall wrote:
>
> The following is an article from the Christchurch Press (new Zealand)
> Another family member, Pastor Stan Rex, of Auckland said King Georges
> clandestine marriage to Yorkshire draper Hannah Lightfoot actually
> produced three sons - George, John and Henry.
> The story goes that the mother and her children were banished to
> South Africa and given large amounts of money to keep quiet.
<snip>
> Later in life the sons went their seperate ways - George stayed in
> South Africa, Henry went to Utah . . .
>
> Bernard S Hall bsh...@ihug.co.nz
ccz...@szn1.nott.ac.uk
William Addams Reitwiesner wrote:
> ccz...@szn1.nott.ac.uk wrote:
> >William Addams Reitwiesner wrote:
> >> The topic is the claim that George III was married to Hannah Lightfoot
> >> before he married Charlotte of Mecklenburg, and that by Hannah he had a son
> >> named George Rex who moved to South Africa.
> >> George Rex was an important person in South African history on his own, and
> >> several biographies of him have appeared, including Sanni Metelerkamp,
> >> *George Rex of Knysa* [Cape Town: Timmins, 1955] and C. H. Price, *George
> >> Rex, King or Esquire* [Cape Town: Timmins, 1973]. It's been a dozen or so
> >> years since I read those books, but as I recall both dismissed his alleged
> >> Royal parentage.
> >A view reinforced, I thought, by a recent television programme (though
> >that was not the line which the programme itself took, I should add).
> I haven't seen the program, but a friend pointed out an article in *The
> Sunday Telegraph* of June 29, 1997, p. 20 (by Tim Reid). This article
> shows that the evidence used by the program to support the claim of the
> marriage of George III to Hannah Lightfoot were the forgeries presented
> during the sensational 1866 trial "Ryves and Ryves v. the Attorney General"
> (though the article, and I assume the program, neither identifies the trial
> nor acknowledges that the documents were found to have been forged).
Yes and no. The above note explains one of the queries I had about the
programme (and further confirms my view of the whole claim being false).
The 1866 case was mentioned and the presenter noted that after the
trial, the government confiscated the evidence and locked it up. His
claim was that this was done because it was so sensational or
controversial or whatever (choose adjective according to taste). In
particular, he noted the opinion given by a handwriting expert over (if
I recall correctly) a signature on the purported marriage certificate of
the then Prince of Wales and Miss Lightfoot. The expert said that the
signature was genuine. So far, so good.
The presenter then went on to note that the documents which had been
locked up were now available for examination. Even better. Surely he
would now produce the marriage certificate and ask a modern-day expert
to decide on it. In fact not only did this _not_ happen but the
certificate wasn't produced at all. Instead the presenter chose to
display two other documents from the set which had been confiscated.
Neither seemed particularly relevant and I now forget what they were.
The presenter certainly made no mention that the documents were ever
ajudged to be forgeries.
It makes one wonder precisely what the presenter's motives were in
making this programme.
kabo...@worldnet.att.net
> It makes one wonder precisely what the presenter's motives were in
> making this programme.
Ratings, perhaps?
John Steele Gordon
BRUSH FIRE
*****************************************************************************
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 |
| "It is better to know some of the
Treasurer of TCD Sci Fi Society | questions than all of the answers"
*Largest, most active society* | - James Thurber
****************************************************************************
BRUSH FIRE
> So all of George III's children would be bastards, and Queen Victoria's
> line legally usurpers of illegitimate descent? This could account for
> some of George III's insanity. I wonder if this was tested in a court
> of law, would the present royal family have to vacate the premises and
> the line of one of Goerge III's brothers assume the throne assuming
> Goerge Rex had no issue or siblings with issue.
>
I believe that George III's insanity was actually inherited and due to his
blood rather than any inherent guilt that his many MANY children (fifteen,
wasn't it) were illegitimate, and that he was misleading his people.
All the inbreeding practiced by royalty throughout the generations led to
spates of insanity and inherited diseases such as haemophelia. Both the
French and Spanish royal families had noted cases of insane monarchs, and
through the French royal family it was passed into the British royal line.
King Charles VI of France was clinically insane, sparked off by a slight
scare when riding in a forest. His fanatically promiscuous wife, Isabeau,
can't have helped much either. However, Charles's own mother, Joan of
Bourbon, was also mad...therefore this was clearly inherited.
Charles was the father of many children, of whom Catherine became the wife
of Henry V of England, and mother of Henry VI. Henry VI, of course, was
also insane, and his weakness may well have been the deciding factor in
propelling the rivalries between Edward III's descendants towards open
war.
Catherine of Valois herself was retired to a nunnery at the age of only
36, and it has been suggested that perhaps she herself went mad at the end
of her life. She had been living with (or perhaps married to) Owen Tudor,
who was popularly perceived as a low-born plaything for a Dowager Queen of
England and Princess of France. Although it subscribes to the romantic
view, I prefer to believe that she was placed in a nunnery because of the
embarrassment caused to the throne by the sudden public revelation of her
indiscretion by Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, who had Owen Tudor imprisoned
in Newgate as a common felon. Catherine had also recently given birth to
the last of her children by Owen Tudor in 1436, and this child did not
surive, indicating that perhaps Catherine was in genuinely poor health.
Their madness apart, the Valois were not noted for their hardiness. Three
of her brothers in succession were Dauphins, and two died young.
In Spain Juana of Castile was notably mad, and was locked away for most of
her life. She refused to allow her husband, Philip the Fair, to be buried
and had to be restrained from keeping his body in the coffin indefinitely
by her side.
Juana's great-grandson, Don Carlos (son of Philip II) may also have been
mad: I believe he may have been deformed as well.
Any other opinions on madness throughout royal genealogy?
Michelle Murphy
Pam Wilson
And so why is it, again, that so many people among us are eager to claim
descent from these royal families which are inbred and prone to mental
illness??? ;^)
Perhaps we should celebrate our low-bred-but-hearty peasant stock...?
Cheers,
Pam Wilson
Todd A. Farmerie
William Addams Reitwiesner wrote:
>
> BRUSH FIRE <mmu...@tcd.ie> wrote:
>
> >All the inbreeding practiced by royalty throughout the generations led to
> >spates of insanity and inherited diseases such as haemophelia.
> >
> Royals in the past hundred years or so) is a sex-linked recessive, and thus
> can't be affected, either positively or negatively, by inbreeding.
(Except for the cases in which a female suffers from it, having gotten
the nasty gene from both parents.)
It is much more likely to have resulted from the age of Victoria's
father at the time of her conception, by which time the passing on of a
mutated gene is drasticly increased.
taf
Graham Milne
Because I'm a complete lunatic...
Rgds
Graham Milne
Pam Wilson <pwi...@CARLOW.EDU> wrote in article
<33CBBD...@carlow.edu>...
C. Mason
> (Except for the cases in which a female suffers from it, having gotten
> the nasty gene from both parents.)
>
It is my understanding that NO female has suffered from hemophelia. The
recessive gene is carried thru the female line and the disease manifests
itself in her male offspring. It would appear that Victoria passed the
genetic propensity to her female offspring thru the third generation. I
also have NEVER heard of it being a symptom caused by the age of the
parents at gestation. If you have sources for your statments please
forward them.
Todd A. Farmerie
C. Mason wrote:
>
> > (Except for the cases in which a female suffers from it, having gotten
> > the nasty gene from both parents.)
> >
>
> It is my understanding that NO female has suffered from hemophelia. The
> recessive gene is carried thru the female line and the disease manifests
> itself in her male offspring. It would appear that Victoria passed the
> genetic propensity to her female offspring thru the third generation.
While it most commonly occurs in men, it can occur in women. Almost all
hemophelias are caused by the lack of a good copy of the gene for one of
the blood clotting factors, in this case Factor VIII. This gene is
located on the X chromosome. Since men are XY, then if their X has a
bad copy, they don't have any good copies. Women are XX, and thus they
can be carriers. The deficience of their bad copy is compensated for by
the other good copy of the gene, and they have essentially normal
clotting. If, however, both of their X chromosomes are bad, then they
have no good copies.
Why these cases are rare is due to simple statistics, and also until
recently, for epidemiological reasons. If the frequency of mutant FVIII
genes in the human population is 1 in 2000 (this is not the true value,
but will demonstrate the point) then one in 2000 men will suffer from
it. For a woman to suffer, both must be bad, in other words, 1 in 2000
for each X, or 1 in 4,000,000. Thus there would be 2,500,000 male
sufferers on the planet, and only 1200 females (statistically
speaking).
The epidemiologic reasons are due to the facts of its inheritance. For
a female to have 2 bad Xs, she must have gotten one from her father.
That means that (except for the case discussed below of a spontaneous
germ-line mutation) the father must have been a hemopheliac, since his
one X must then have been faulty. Prior to modern medicine, many
(most?) hemopheliacs would have bled to death before reaching maturity,
and passing on their mutant gene. If all hemopheliacs bled to death
before reproducing, there could be no female sufferers. Modern medicine
would allow reproduction, and thus passing on of the gene by males, and
will doubtlessly increase both the number of female sufferers, and the
total proportion of the mutant gene in the population (it will only get
worse).
> I also have NEVER heard of it being a symptom caused by the age of the
> parents at gestation. If you have sources for your statments please
> forward them.
I was not refering to hemophelia specifically, but to the mutational
process in general. With no known occurance in the generations prior to
Victoria, it is reasonable to conclude that the mutation initiated in
one of her parents (or perhaps in her mother's parents, Victoria being
an only child). Her father immediately comes to mind, because of his
age at her birth. It is well known that the probability of birth
defects begins to increase dramatically as the father ages (and
particularly after 45 or so), and a recent study looked at DNA mutations
themselves, and saw the same thing. (I could go into the mechanism for
this if you would like.) It is thus extremely likely that the mutation
in the FVIII gene which Victoria passed on to her descendants was the
result of a germ cell mutation in the immediately prior generation, and
somewhat more likely that it was in her father, since he demonstrates
one strong risk factor, than that it was in her mother or maternal
grandparents.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
>
> C. Mason wrote:
> >
> > > (Except for the cases in which a female suffers from it, having gotten
> > > the nasty gene from both parents.)
> > >
> >
> > recessive gene is carried thru the female line and the disease manifests
> > itself in her male offspring. It would appear that Victoria passed the
> > genetic propensity to her female offspring thru the third generation.
>
> While it most commonly occurs in men, it can occur in women. Almost all
> the blood clotting factors, in this case Factor VIII. This gene is
> located on the X chromosome. Since men are XY, then if their X has a
> bad copy, they don't have any good copies. Women are XX, and thus they
> can be carriers. The deficience of their bad copy is compensated for by
> the other good copy of the gene, and they have essentially normal
> clotting. If, however, both of their X chromosomes are bad, then they
> have no good copies.
>
> Why these cases are rare is due to simple statistics,
[Not so simple, if we are working with imaginary numbers]
> and also until
> recently, for epidemiological reasons. If the frequency of mutant FVIII
> genes in the human population is 1 in 2000 (this is not the true value,
> but will demonstrate the point)
What is the *true* value, rather than an imaginary value? It would make
the point much better to be working with accurate numbers ---- rather
than just with a swag.
> then one in 2000 men will suffer from
> it. For a woman to suffer, both must be bad, in other words, 1 in 2000
> for each X, or 1 in 4,000,000. Thus there would be 2,500,000 male
> sufferers on the planet, and only 1200 females (statistically
> speaking).
The numbers quoted above do not have any real meaning, do they ----
because they are based on a guess [1 in 2000]? So, statistically
speaking, these numbers of 2,500,000 and 1200 are purely imaginary. We
need to start with a *true* value or good estimate for the frequency of
occurrence of mutant Factor VIII in the human population --- and clearly
eliminate any of the other blood clotting factors from consideration.
>
> The epidemiologic reasons are due to the facts of its inheritance. For
> a female to have 2 bad Xs, she must have gotten one from her father.
> That means that (except for the case discussed below of a spontaneous
> germ-line mutation) the father must have been a hemopheliac, [sic] (hemophiliac) since his
> one X must then have been faulty. Prior to modern medicine, many
> (most?) hemopheliacs [sic] would have bled to death before reaching maturity,
> and passing on their mutant gene. If all hemopheliacs [sic] bled to death
> before reproducing, there could be no female sufferers. Modern medicine
> would allow reproduction, and thus passing on of the gene by males, and
> will doubtlessly increase both the number of female sufferers, and the
> total proportion of the mutant gene in the population (it will only get
> worse).
>
> > I also have NEVER heard of it being a symptom caused by the age of the
> > parents at gestation. If you have sources for your statments please
> > forward them.
>
> I was not refering [sic] to hemophelia [sic] specifically, but to the mutational
> process in general. With no known occurance [sic] in the generations prior to
> Victoria, it is reasonable to conclude that the mutation initiated in
> one of her parents (or perhaps in her mother's parents, Victoria being
> an only child). Her father immediately comes to mind, because of his
> age at her birth. It is well known that the probability of birth
> defects begins to increase dramatically as the father ages (and
> particularly after 45 or so), and a recent study looked at DNA mutations
> themselves, and saw the same thing. (I could go into the mechanism for
> this if you would like.)
Aththough I do not doubt the accuracy of your tentative speculative
statements in the paragraph, supra ---- it would be useful to have the
citations for your sources, as C. Mason requested ---- and the names and
credentials of the researchers involved. Just saying, "a recent
study...saw the same thing" is not very helpful --- however it is good,
un-documented, authority-rattling.
> It is thus extremely likely that the mutation
> in the FVIII gene which Victoria passed on to her descendants was the
> result of a germ cell mutation in the immediately prior generation, and
> somewhat more likely that it was in her father, since he demonstrates
> one strong risk factor, than that it was in her mother or maternal
> grandparents.
>
> taf
When a correspondent consistently misspells the name of the disease that
he is trying to explain ---- it tends to undercut the credibility of his
response.
--
D. Spencer Hines---Lady Astor, nee Nancy Langhorne of Danville,
Virginia---first woman to serve as an MP---[Conservative, Plymouth]---a
Teetotaller, Appeaser and Ardent Francophobe; at a dinner party with
Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965): "Winston, you're drunk!"
WLSC: "Yes Madam, I am---and you are ugly. But tomorrow, I shall be
sober---and you will still be ugly."
kabo...@worldnet.att.net
> Prior to modern medicine, many
> and passing on their mutant gene. If all hemopheliacs bled to death
> before reproducing, there could be no female sufferers.
Actually one of Queen Victoria's children, Prince Leopold (Apr 7
1853-Mar 28 1884), was a hemophiliac who lived long enough to father two
children. His daughter Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, was
presumably a carrier and both her sons died young, although I don't know
of what cause. His son was born Jul 19 1884, a few months after
Leopold's death. Fortunately, as he was a boy, he did not have the
disease.
Because of his illness, Queen Victoria was reluctant to make Leopold a
royal duke (I haven't the least idea by what logic she connected the
two). He finally got his dukedom when he threatened to run for a seat in
Parliament if she didn't give it to him. Victoria, horrified at the idea
of a prince of the blood in the House of Commons, immediately gave in
and made him Duke of Albany. His son later became Duke of
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and was stripped of his British titles in 1917. His
grandson, Ernst-Leopold is the current titular Duke of Albany and could
petition for a restoration of the title, but has not done so as far as I
know.
John Steele Gordon
D. Spencer Hines
Every few months [sometimes weeks] we have a little flurry of activity
concerning messages on genetics --- hemophilia is a favorite topic.
And, well it should be. As Alexander Kerensky pointed out, "Without
Rasputin there could have been no Lenin." Robert K. Massie, in "Nicholas
and Alexandra" added that, "If this is true, it is also true that if there
had been no hemophilia, there would have been no Rasputin." [p. 506]
Yes, all of this is counter-factual speculation and subject to
argumentation ---- but the argument that hemophilia in the Tsarevich Alexis
was a proximate cause in the destruction of the Imperial Romanov Dynasty
---- and --- through a series of historical wickets ---- opened the way to
the disaster of the Bolsheviks and the death or enslavement of millions to
a new yoke--- is an intriguing and provocative theory.
Certainly the October Revolution cast a long shadow ----- and affected the
lives of billions of us in the Twentieth Century ---- and beyond.
So, the famous *Poisoned Gene* of Queen Victoria as transmitted through
Genealogy into History ---- has had an admittedly and arguably massive
impact on our lives ---- not just those of the Romanovs.
Genetics -----> Genealogy ------> History ----- and only a rather foolish,
or grossly uninformed, person would argue unalterably otherwise.
Still, some may not want any Genetics with their Genealogy [which to them
may be simply a matter of collecting names in *their lines*] and "this
genetics stuff should be over in the science/genetics newsgroup bailiwick"
--- or words to that effect.
I could not disagree more. I welcome these messages ---- by Todd A.
Farmerie, and others ---- that are delightful to read and open new vistas
to the thoughtful genealogical researcher.
Here is my Dilemma:
>> I was not refering [sic] to hemophelia [sic] specifically, but to the
mutational
>> process in general. With no known occurance [sic] in the generations
prior to
>> Victoria, it is reasonable to conclude that the mutation initiated in
>> one of her parents (or perhaps in her mother's parents, Victoria being
>> an only child). Her father immediately comes to mind, because of his
>> age at her birth. It is well known that the probability of birth
>> defects begins to increase dramatically as the father ages (and
>> particularly after 45 or so), and a recent study looked at DNA mutations
>> themselves, and saw the same thing. (I could go into the mechanism for
>> this if you would like.) [TAF]
I read a paragraph such as that and have not the slightest idea what the
credentials and background are of the person who wrote it.
Perhaps he is a Practicing Geneticist? Or a Molecular Biologist? Or is he
rather a non-molecular Biologist or an Anthropologist or a Sociologist who
read an article in a journal and is parroting back some of it to us ---- as
much as he remembers?
Or is this just a guy who once took a course in genetics in college or
graduate school --- and tries to keep up with it ---- because it is one of
his collateral interests?
Or none of the above? He's an Engineer, Political Scientist, Librarian ----
who knows?
This is a highly technical matter. I want straight dope, not "off the top
of the head" opinings. This is precisely the sort of dope some folks will
accept as Gospel ---- and then it gets propagated through data bases ----
and assumes a hydra-like existence.
Probably a great deal of the information is right on the money ---- let's
assume 80-85%. But which 15-20% may be inaccurate or superceded ---- if
that be the case? There are no citations. "A recent study looked at DNA
mutations themselves, and saw the same thing." --- is not very helpful.
The author kindly offers to "go into the mechanism if you would like" ----
which is correct and thoughtful.
However, it is not so much the "mechanism" that intrigues me [at this
juncture] but who is telling me this and what are his credentials? --- We
are dealing with the intricacies of a complex science where information
rapidly becomes obsolete. Also, who wrote the "recent study", where is it
published, what are their credentials ---- and what do their critics say
about the article?
Here is another paragraph from the same document:
>
>> It is thus extremely likely that the mutation
>> in the FVIII gene which Victoria passed on to her descendants was the
>> result of a germ cell mutation in the immediately prior generation, and
>> somewhat more likely that it was in her father, since he demonstrates
>> one strong risk factor, than that it was in her mother or maternal
>> grandparents. [TAF]
There are two speculative judgments here --- the "extremely likely" [p=?]
and "somewhat more likely" [p=?] critical nodes in the paragraph.
[p=probability of the occurrence of]. From what I, as a layman, have read
they seem to be "correct" ---- but I claim no particular expertise in this
field --- although I have studied a good deal of science and have an
advanced degree in one.
How do we know that the person writing this is not only slightly more
knowledgeable about this than some of us --- and may just have boned up on
this narrow aspect of the hemophilia issue. If that were the case, there
could be some quite subtle errors of fact and logic in this post --- which
would slip through the sieve and become another part of -----
***Genealogical Folklore*** ---- which, as we all know, is virtually
impossible to eradicate once it starts spreading like ------ KUDZU.
We've recently heard about the works of Frederick Adams Virkus ---- and the
intractable problems of eradication there. I'm not suggesting, in any way,
that Todd A. Farmerie's genetics post is comparable, with respect to low
quality, to the work of Frederick Adams Virkus.
Some *bona fides* as to level of expertise and credentialing of the poster
and the authors of the "study" would be helpful to our forming such a
considered judgment. My fondest hope is that they would turn out to be
impressive and impeccable. But, even an, "I don't have any special
expertise in this area --- but I read a long, detailed article about it in
*Science Magazine* in July of last year ---- and here's a summary of it."
--- genre of explanation --- would be welcome and useful.
Nothing I have said here should be taken, in any conceivable way, as
discouraging thoughtful and relevant posts on hemophilia, sickle-cell
anemia, hypertension, gout, cancer, homosexuality ---- or any other
potential genetic phenomena that might have an impact on Genealogy.
Let's just make sure they are informed posts --- and let's see the
appropriate citations --- of and for ---- the so-called "experts."
D. Spencer Hines --- "Genealogy is an infinite binary series --- both
regressively and progressively --- propagated by means of a terminal ---
sexually transmitted disease --- producing a 100% death rate, which we call
Life." [DSH] --- 4 June 1997
William Addams Reitwiesner
"Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>
>C. Mason wrote:
>>
>> > (Except for the cases in which a female suffers from it, having gotten
>> > the nasty gene from both parents.)
>> >
>>
>> It is my understanding that NO female has suffered from hemophelia. The
>> recessive gene is carried thru the female line and the disease manifests
>> itself in her male offspring. It would appear that Victoria passed the
>> genetic propensity to her female offspring thru the third generation.
>
>While it most commonly occurs in men, it can occur in women. Almost all
>hemophelias are caused by the lack of a good copy of the gene for one of
>the blood clotting factors, in this case Factor VIII. This gene is
>located on the X chromosome. Since men are XY, then if their X has a
>bad copy, they don't have any good copies. Women are XX, and thus they
>can be carriers. The deficience of their bad copy is compensated for by
>the other good copy of the gene, and they have essentially normal
>clotting. If, however, both of their X chromosomes are bad, then they
>have no good copies.
>
>Why these cases are rare is due to simple statistics, and also until
>recently, for epidemiological reasons. If the frequency of mutant FVIII
>genes in the human population is 1 in 2000 (this is not the true value,
>but will demonstrate the point) then one in 2000 men will suffer from
>it. For a woman to suffer, both must be bad, in other words, 1 in 2000
>for each X, or 1 in 4,000,000. Thus there would be 2,500,000 male
>sufferers on the planet, and only 1200 females (statistically
>speaking).
>
>The epidemiologic reasons are due to the facts of its inheritance. For
>a female to have 2 bad Xs, she must have gotten one from her father.
>That means that (except for the case discussed below of a spontaneous
>germ-line mutation) the father must have been a hemopheliac, since his
>one X must then have been faulty. Prior to modern medicine, many
>(most?) hemopheliacs would have bled to death before reaching maturity,
>and passing on their mutant gene. If all hemopheliacs bled to death
>before reproducing, there could be no female sufferers. Modern medicine
>would allow reproduction, and thus passing on of the gene by males, and
>will doubtlessly increase both the number of female sufferers, and the
>total proportion of the mutant gene in the population (it will only get
>worse).
>
>
>> I also have NEVER heard of it being a symptom caused by the age of the
>> parents at gestation. If you have sources for your statments please
>> forward them.
>
>I was not refering to hemophelia specifically, but to the mutational
>process in general. With no known occurance in the generations prior to
>Victoria, it is reasonable to conclude that the mutation initiated in
>one of her parents (or perhaps in her mother's parents, Victoria being
>an only child). Her father immediately comes to mind, because of his
>age at her birth. It is well known that the probability of birth
>defects begins to increase dramatically as the father ages (and
>particularly after 45 or so), and a recent study looked at DNA mutations
>themselves, and saw the same thing. (I could go into the mechanism for
>this if you would like.) It is thus extremely likely that the mutation
>in the FVIII gene which Victoria passed on to her descendants was the
>result of a germ cell mutation in the immediately prior generation, and
>somewhat more likely that it was in her father, since he demonstrates
>one strong risk factor, than that it was in her mother or maternal
>grandparents.
In the interests of accuracy, I should point out that Queen Victoria had an
older half-brother Carl (1804-1856) and an older half-sister Feodora
(1807-1872), both children of Victoria's mother's first marriage to the
Prince of Leiningen. Carl was not a hemophiliac, and, as far as I can
tell, none of Feodora's descendants had hemophilia, which lessens the
chances that Victoria's mother had the gene.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."
Ralph L Holloway
I should let TAF respond for himself, but from seeing several of his posts
on sci.bio.evolution, etc, I know him to be well-versed in molecular
biology, if not an actual practicing one. Myself, I am a human biologist
("physical anthropologist") and what TAF posted appeared very plausible to
me, but I am not a genetics expert. I know of no way of proving that the
mutation did indeed come from Victoria's father or that it can be
demonstrated conclusively that the "cause" was age. On the other hand,
TAF's reasoning is perfectly in line and reasonable given everyhting I've
read of human genetics. As for TAF's credentials, surely this is better
covered in private e-mails?
Ralph Holloway
D. Spencer Hines
Lest someone run amuck [remember the always useful "Idiot Check"] and
leap to the conclusion that I am suggesting that before anyone post ---
she or he must tell us his or her credentials. I have said no such
thing.
I'm simply pointing out that a post on a highly scientific or technical
subject --- genetics, physical chemistry, molecular biology ---- are
three that come to mind ---- with relevance to Genealogy ---- the poster
should reveal his or her *bona fides* and qualifications ---- up front.
Obviously the absolute number of such posts is quite small. As a
percentage of all the posts to soc.gen.medieval, the number has been
---- and would, no doubt, remain ---- miniscule.
D. Spencer Hines
At 04:21 PM 7/29/97 +0000, you wrote:
>I should let TAF respond for himself, but from seeing several of his posts
>on sci.bio.evolution, etc, I know him to be well-versed in molecular
>biology, if not an actual practicing one. Myself, I am a human biologist
>("physical anthropologist") and what TAF posted appeared very plausible to
>me, but I am not a genetics expert. I know of no way of proving that the
>mutation did indeed come from Victoria's father or that it can be
>demonstrated conclusively that the "cause" was age. On the other hand,
>TAF's reasoning is perfectly in line and reasonable given everyhting I've
>read of human genetics. As for TAF's credentials, surely this is better
>covered in private e-mails?
>Ralph Holloway
>
Thank you for this useful information and endorsement. It confirms my
prior knowledge. I have also posted a message in soc.history.medieval,
which is relevant to this discussion ---- in response to one from Paul J.
Gans --- and a reply by Todd A. Farmerie.
Quite the contrary, with respect to credentials. If someone is presenting
detailed scientific and technical data --- and *ipso facto* presenting her
or himself as an expert --- the reader deserves a statement -- up-front ---
as to the qualifications of the writer to make said statements. The reader
should not have to approach the writer, in a separate message, as a
supplicant, privately ---- to receive what is her right.
"Sunshine Is the Best Disinfectant" --- as [Supreme Court Justice] Mr.
Justice Louis D. Brandeis [1856-1941] is often credited as having said ----
but if someone wants to correct me on that, please do.
D. Spencer Hines---"Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da
gloriam, propter misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V,
[1387-1422] King of England---Ordered it to be sung by his prelates and
chaplains---after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415,---while every
able-bodied man in his victorious army knelt, on the ground. [Psalm CXV,
Verse I]
D. Spencer Hines
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
>
> In message <33DCA1...@worldnet.att.net>
> "C. Mason" <MASON...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > (Except for the cases in which a female suffers from it, having gotten
> > > the nasty gene from both parents.)
> > >
> >
> > It is my understanding that NO female has suffered from hemophelia. The
> > recessive gene is carried thru the female line and the disease manifests
> > itself in her male offspring. It would appear that Victoria passed the
> > also have NEVER heard of it being a symptom caused by the age of the
> > parents at gestation. If you have sources for your statments please
> > forward them.
>
> "bleeders" they called themselves; one in particular was female. They were
> all very well aware of their problem should they suffer any cut. Not that I
> am a medic, of course, let alone done any examination of ther blood.
>
> --
> Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@southfrm.demon.co.uk
> South Farm:
> A logical entity with a real conterpart but no address bar this.
It it not just cuts, but *falls* that can be problematic --- and often
fatal. Internal bleeding in the joints can become extremely painful and
disfiguring. Internal bleeding in vital organs can rapidly lead to
death
Such was the case with Queen Victoria's own son, Leopold, Duke of
Albany. He slipped and fell, at the Villa Nevada, in Cannes, France and
bumped his knee. Apparently he had also sustained a brain hemorrhage
that killed him --- at the age of 30 --- in 1884.
Tsarevich Alexis [son of Tsar Nicholas II and Tsarina Alexandra] also,
as an adventurous young boy, often had disastrous falls --- and
near-death experiences --- particularly from uncontrollable bleeding
[tourniquets are not very helpful] in his knee joints. Enter Rasputin,
stage left, to seek God's intervention and cure Alexis.
--
D. Spencer Hines---"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever
remains, however improbable, must be the truth."---Sherlock Holmes---Sir
Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930)---"The Sign of Four" (1890), Chapter 6.
D. Spencer Hines
Yvonne Demoskoff wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:34:28 -0400, kabo...@worldnet.att.net [kaboodle is John Steele Gordon] wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>
> > His
> >grandson, Ernst-Leopold is the current titular Duke of Albany and could
> >petition for a restoration of the title, but has not done so as far as I
> >know.
> >
>
> third wife, committed suicide in June 1996.
>
> Yvonne
> yvo...@uniserve.com
>
Strike Five. There's nothing like a little research *before* posting
--- to improve the batting average.
John Steele Gordon is fond of literary images from popular culture
[Captain Queeg from Herman Wouk's fine novel "The Caine Mutiny." JSG
seems to have forgotten, as do many who have never read the book --- or
even carefully watched the famous closing scenes of the film --- that
Captain Queeg is actually the flawed (Remember Oedipus, Achilles, Prince
Andrei, etc., pick your favorite.) hero of the tale.] so here is one
for him to put in his "character file."
The more I see of JSG's hyperbolic hysteria ---- the more he reminds me
of the character that Peter Lorre played right up to -- and over -- the
top in ----- "The Maltese Falcon" ----- "Joel Cairo."
No, Captain Queeg is not one of my "role models" or "heroes" either. Do
I hear any votes for "President James Marshall" ---- Harrison Ford ----
in "Air Force One?" That man has good genes.
Yvonne Demoskoff
kabo...@worldnet.att.net
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Strike Five. There's nothing like a little research *before* posting
> --- to improve the batting average.
I used the 1996 Whitacker's Almanack, the most recent one I have.
>
> John Steele Gordon is fond of literary images from popular culture
> [Captain Queeg from Herman Wouk's fine novel "The Caine Mutiny." JSG
> seems to have forgotten, as do many who have never read the book --- or
> even carefully watched the famous closing scenes of the film --- that
> Captain Queeg is actually the flawed (Remember Oedipus, Achilles, Prince
> Andrei, etc., pick your favorite.) hero of the tale.] so here is one
> for him to put in his "character file."
The Queeg analogy seems to have struck home. Of course Mr. Hines and
Capt. Queeg are different in one way. Queeg, at least, had steel balls.
Mr. Hines appears to have none at all.
> The more I see of JSG's hyperbolic hysteria
And again, instead of answering the question, to which I have every
right to
an answer, you respond, for the sixth time, with a personal attack. Be
my guest, you are only making my case.
So I repeat, for the seventh time, what evidence and authority have you
for the following statement?:
> John Steele Gordon ---- probably deliberately ---- ignores the clear
> meaning of my statement.
You made the statement. Now defend it, apologize for it, or continue to
squirm pathetically in front of the entire newsgroup--like Queeg on the
witness stand-- revealed ever more clearly for what you are: a bully, a
coward, and a hypocrite.
John Steele Gordon
kabo...@worldnet.att.net
Yes, that would make the petitioning process somewhat more difficult.
Does anyone know if he had a son? His uncle, Prince Friedrich Josias,
born 1918, was alive in 1995 and has issue--but I don't know if it is
male issue--so I presume the dukedom is at least not extinct.
John Steele Gordon
D. Spencer Hines
kabo...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> > Strike Five. There's nothing like a little research *before* posting
> > --- to improve the batting average.
>
> I used the 1996 Whitacker's Almanack, the most recent one I have.
You should learn *never* to make a categorical statement based on a
single [and perhaps misread] source. You made precisely that mistake in
the matter of the Gregorian Calendar. Your learning curve is not showing
much improvement.
<baldersnip>
> ...continue to
> squirm pathetically in front of the entire newsgroup--like Queeg on the
> witness stand-- revealed ever more clearly for what you are: a bully, a
> coward, and a hypocrite.
>
> John Steele Gordon
You still have not read the Book "The Caine Mutiny" ---- have you? So,
once again, you do not really know what you are talking about with
reference to the Woukian character "Captain Queeg." I thought, at the
very least, you would read the last chapter or two before sounding off
again from the miasmic swamp of your abysmal ignorance --- on this
topic.
Strike Six. Most batters only get the standard three.
Yes, Peter Lorre as "Joel Cairo" --- in "The Maltese Falcon" --- has it
just right. That phenomenon of the "feral outbust" that you display so
well in your repetoire of emotions. Are you perhaps his long-lost son
or grandson?
Peter Lorre [1904-1964] [birth name Ladislav Lowenstein, he was born in
Hungary] was a *very* fine actor.
Methinks you have some mighty big shoes to fill [figuratively speaking
--- he was small in stature] if you are trying to imitate his feral
outbursts [first seen in Fritz Lang's "M"] ---- with words such as
bully, coward, and hypocrite. I suspect Peter would have performed much
better ---- and had a larger vocabulary of invective to boot.
--
D. Spencer Hines-----"The silliest woman can manage a clever man; but it
needs a very clever woman to manage a fool!" Rudyard Kipling *** Plain
Tales From the Hills (1888)
kabo...@worldnet.att.net
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> You still have not read the Book "The Caine Mutiny" ---- have you?
Actually I have read it twice--it's one of the great novels of the 20th
century. And I played Lieutenant Greenwald in a production of The Caine
Mutiny Court Martial, you know the lawyer who breaks Queeg on the stand
and then defends him at the party after the acquital in a long speech
that climaxes with the line, "He kept Herman Goering from washing his
fat behind with my mother." Sorry to disappoint you.
But YOU still haven't answered my perfectly reasonable question, and
everyone is wondering why you can't face answering it. The reason, of
course, is the same reason Queeg couldn't face the shore batteries and
threw over a dye marker: you are a coward.
So I repeat it, for the eighth time, what evidence and authority have
you for the following statement?:
> John Steele Gordon ---- probably deliberately ---- ignores the clear
> meaning of my statement.
You made the statement. Now defend it, apologize for it, or continue to
squirm pathetically in front of the entire newsgroup--like Queeg on the
witness stand--revealed ever more clearly for what you are: a bully, a
coward, and a hypocrite.
> Strike Six.
Actually one and half. I don't regard not knowing that some minor German
princeling killed himself a year ago as much of a lack of knowledge.
> Most batters only get the standard three.
But life isn't baseball, Mr. Hines. We all make mistakes and most of us
cheerfully acknowledge them and move on. You snivel and try to change
the subject by making personal attacks. Sort of like, oh, Captain Queeg.
Come on, old yellow stain, answer the question.
John Steele Gordon
D. Spencer Hines
kabo...@worldnet.att.net wrote: [kaboodle is John Steele Gordon]
> Actually one of Queen Victoria's children, Prince Leopold (Apr 7
> 1853-Mar 28 1884), was a hemophiliac who lived long enough to father two
> children. His daughter Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, was
> presumably a carrier and both her sons died young, although I don't know
> of what cause.
<snip>
Both sons were hemophiliacs:
Prince Rupert Alexander George Augustus of Teck was born 24 Aug 1907 at
Claremont House, Esher Surrey. He died 15 Apr 1928 at
Bellevue-sur-Salone, France ---- 14 Days after an automobile accident.
After 16 Jul 1917, [and the change of the Royal Family's name to Windsor
from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on 17 Jul 1917] he was styled as Rupert
Cambridge, Viscount Trematon.
Prince Maurice Francis George of Teck was born 29 Mar 1910, also at
Claremont House, Esher, Surrey and died 14 Sep 1910 at Schloss
Reinhardsbrunn.
Source: "Queen Victoria's Descendants" by Marlene A. Eilers, GPC [1987];
ISBN 0-8063-1202-5; pp. 131, 216 & 221
Corrections and Additions are Welcome.
D. Spencer Hines
kabo...@worldnet.att.net wrote: [kaboodle is John Steele Gordon]
<snip>
> His son later became Duke of
> Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and was stripped of his British titles in 1917.
Actually, according to Marlene A. Eilers, op cit., Carl Eduard,
***[[1884-1954] Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (from 23 Jul 1900, having
succeeded his paternal uncle, Duke Alfred.) Carl Eduard was the son of
Prince Leopold of Great Britain and Ireland, Duke of Albany
[1853-1884]]*** referred to above, who was born posthumously,
**abdicated** 14 Nov 1918. "His British titles were struck from the
Roll of Peers by Order in Council, on 28 Mar 1919. Until this date, his
children were also entitled to the title of Prince or Princess of Great
Britain and Ireland."
To repeat, my source for the above is "Queen Victoria's Descendants" by
Marlene A. Eilers, GPC [1987] p. 221.
If John Steele Gordon has a conflicting source, which may be the case,
for his postulated date of the "[stripping] of his [Carl Eduard's]
British titles" as ***1917*** ---- he should state it and quote it
verbatim ---- as I have above. Then we can sort out the truth of the
matter.
D. Spencer Hines
kabo...@worldnet.att.net wrote:[kaboodle is Kaboodle]
<baldersnip>
> > Strike Six.
>
> Actually one and half. I don't regard not knowing that some minor German
> princeling killed himself a year ago as much of a lack of knowledge.
>
> John Steele Gordon
Hmmmm, what a remarkably "flexible" standard for careful, professional
quality Genealogy. How infinitely "contemporary" and fungible.
Let's see ---- if you report a fact about a "minor German princeling"
[French, Hungarian, Russian, et al., work also?] and get it wrong ---
then it's OK and should be ignored when one reviews your track record
---- because it does not constitute "much of a lack of knowledge."
Hmmmm, but you get to determine who is a "minor" figure rather a "major"
one --- delightfully simple isn't it ---- heads I win and tails you lose
---- from your perspective.
We really must find this young man a staff position in Washington, D.C.
--- he understands the language and practice of the creative Buck &
Weave quite well.
Yvonne Demoskoff
On Sat, 02 Aug 1997 11:34:20 -0400, kabo...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>Yvonne Demoskoff wrote:
>> Ernst-Leopold is not likely to petition anything since he, along with his
>> third wife, committed suicide in June 1996.
>
>Yes, that would make the petitioning process somewhat more difficult.
>Does anyone know if he had a son? His uncle, Prince Friedrich Josias,
>born 1918, was alive in 1995 and has issue--but I don't know if it is
>male issue--so I presume the dukedom is at least not extinct.
>
>John Steele Gordon
>
Ernst-Leopold had 1 son (Hubertus, b. 1961) by his 1st wife, and 3 sons
(Ernst-Josias, b. 1965, Carl-Eduard, b. 1966, Friedrich-Ferdinand, b. 1968) by
his 2nd wife. He didn't have any children by his 3rd wife. As well,
Ernst-Leopold had 1 brother and 2 nephews, as well as 2 male cousins (with
issue) by his uncle Friedrich Josias (who is still alive, but reportedly in poor
health).
Yvonne
yvo...@uniserve.com
kabo...@worldnet.att.net
The statement in the brackets strikes me as a tad tautological.
> <baldersnip>
What old yellowstain snipped was:
So I repeat it, for the eighth time, what evidence and authority have
you for the following statement?:
> John Steele Gordon ---- probably deliberately ---- ignores the clear
> meaning of my statement.
You made the statement. Now defend it, apologize for it, or continue to
squirm pathetically in front of the entire newsgroup--like Queeg on the
witness stand--revealed ever more clearly for what you are: a bully, a
coward, and a hypocrite.
He still demands everyone else cite their authorities for their
assertions but has different rules for himself when making personal
attacks.
> > > Strike Six.
> >
> > Actually one and half. I don't regard not knowing that some minor German
> > princeling killed himself a year ago as much of a lack of knowledge.
> >
> Hmmmm, what a remarkably "flexible" standard for careful, professional
> quality Genealogy. How infinitely "contemporary" and fungible.
I am not a professional genealogist. I write history for a living.
> Let's see ---- if you report a fact about a "minor German princeling"
> [French, Hungarian, Russian, et al., work also?] and get it wrong ---
> then it's OK and should be ignored when one reviews your track record
> ---- because it does not constitute "much of a lack of knowledge."
Are you actually trying to argue that the grandson of the last duke of a
763-square-mile duchy that no longer even exists as a political entity
was not a "minor princeling"? Who are minor princelings in your book,
cleaning ladies? And it seems to me that assuming the information in a
1996 reference book of excellent reputation is current is reasonable.
Even so I scored myself a half-point off. Of course, being reasonable is
not exactly old yellowstain's long suit, at least when criticizing
others.
> Hmmmm, but you get to determine who is a "minor" figure rather a "major"
> one --- delightfully simple isn't it ---- heads I win and tails you lose
> ---- from your perspective.
The last time I checked, I was allowed to choose the words I use, just
as you are free to disagree with my choice. But let's be democratic. All
those who agree with old yellowstain that Prince Ernst-Leopold, titular
duke of a non-existent duchy that when it DID exist was half the size of
Rhode Island, was one of the titans of 20th-century history--you know,
Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Prince Ernst-Leopold--please post to that
effect.
> We really must find this young man a staff position in Washington, D.C.
> --- he understands the language and practice of the creative Buck &
> Weave quite well.
Perhaps that's why the Wall Street Journal has asked me for an Op-Ed
piece on that exact subject. And we might note that old yellowstain has
available to him the information needed to easily ascertain my
approximate age (which, for the record, has been 53 since last May 7th).
Instead, he made an entirely unsupported assumption about it. And while
I wouldn't ask anyone to apologize for calling me young, I would like
him to note his error and his own capacity for making same.
And I would like him to apologize for calling me intellectually
dishonest on the basis of no evidence whatever, or at least explain why
he won't.
John Steele Gordon
D. Spencer Hines
kabo...@worldnet.att.net wrote: [kaboodle is Kaboodle]
<baldersnip>
> > We really must find this [angry] young man a staff position in Washington, D.C.
> > --- he understands the language and practice of the creative Buck &
> > Weave quite well. [DSH]
>
> Perhaps that's why the Wall Street Journal has asked me for an Op-Ed
> piece on that exact subject. [JSP]
<baldersnip>
Well those guys and gals at the Wall Street Journal are a smart bunch.
They certainly knew how to pick the right fellow.
D. Spencer Hines
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > His son later became Duke of
> >
> > Actually, according to Marlene A. Eilers, op cit., Carl Eduard,
> > ***[[1884-1954] Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (from 23 Jul 1900, having
> > succeeded his paternal uncle, Duke Alfred.) Carl Eduard was the son of
> > Prince Leopold of Great Britain and Ireland, Duke of Albany
> > [1853-1884]]*** referred to above, who was born posthumously,
> > **abdicated** 14 Nov 1918. "His British titles were struck from the
> > Roll of Peers by Order in Council, on 28 Mar 1919. Until this date, his
> > children were also entitled to the title of Prince or Princess of Great
> > Britain and Ireland."
> >
> > To repeat, my source for the above is "Queen Victoria's Descendants" by
> > Marlene A. Eilers, GPC [1987] p. 221.
> >
> > If John Steele Gordon has a conflicting source, which may be the case,
> > for his postulated date of the "[stripping] of his [Carl Eduard's]
> > British titles" as ***1917*** ---- he should state it and quote it
> > verbatim ---- as I have above. Then we can sort out the truth of the
> > matter.
>
> Edward (1884-1954), Duke of Albany 1884 until title suspended 1917, . .
OK. We may have two sources that conflict, Eilers and Whitaker. It
would certainly not be the first time in human History that has
happened. Is "suspended" the same as "stripped" in this context? A
"suspension" until the end of World War I, when all these things could
be sorted out, would make sense --- but that is hardly the same thing as
"stripping" one of something.
> ."
>
> I might add that while the situation might have been different in 1919
> (but I don't think so) the statement in old yellowstain's source: "Until
> this date, his
> > children were also entitled to the title of Prince or Princess of Great
> > Britain and Ireland" is incorrect.
I simply quoted what Marlene Eilers said and made that crystal clear.
[Why don't you drop that tacky "old yellowstain" pejorative ---- it just
makes you appear even cheaper than you are. Yes, we know you say you
acted in the play.]
>
> According to "Honours and Titles in Britain," issued by British
> Information Services, January 1975, "In the third generation, the
> grandchildren of the Sovereign's sons are not born royal, and are only
> peers if they receive or inherit a peerage. (Thus the Earl of St.
> Andrews, son of the Duke of Kent, and great-grandson of King George V,
> is not a prince, and he will never be a 'royal duke' even on succeeding
> to his father's dukedom."
The rules may have changed since 27 Mar 1919. In fact, Eilers tells us
they have, to some extent. She may possibly be mistaken. Or Whitaker
may be mistaken. Or the truth may lie somewhere in between --- with a
bit of sloppy or ambiguous wording on both sides.
I certainly do not pretend to have any expertise in this area of
"Honours and Titles in Britain" on 27 Mar 1919, on 28 Mar 1919, in Jan
1975, and in 1997. I do have enough sense to know that simply picking
up a copy of a document issued by British Information Services in Jan
1975 and selectively quoting from it will not make me an expert.
Beware the man of one book, particularly when we are talking about what
was true in 1917 through early 1919 and he is quoting from a 1975 book.
What were the rules in 1917?
Can anyone speak with authority on this matter?
kabo...@worldnet.att.net
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> <baldersnip>
Again, what old yellowstain snipped--to avoid facing the possibility
that he had made a mistake--was the following:
So I repeat it, for the eighth time, what evidence and authority have
you for the following statement?:
> John Steele Gordon ---- probably deliberately ---- ignores the clear
> meaning of my statement.
You made the statement. Now defend it, apologize for it, or continue to
squirm pathetically in front of the entire newsgroup--like Queeg on the
witness stand--revealed ever more clearly for what you are: a bully, a
coward, and a hypocrite.
Old yellowstain still demands everyone else cite their authorities for
their
assertions but has different rules for himself when making personal
attacks.
> > > We really must find this [angry] young man a staff position in Washington,
D.C.
> <baldersnip>
This time what he snipped was the fact that he had chastised me for
calling the grandson of the ex-Duke of a no longer existent
763-square-mile duchy a "minor German princeling," and the fact that he
had assumed I was young when he could easily have determined my age. He
makes two mistakes in as many paragraphs and "baldersnips" them to avoid
facing them.
And how could I be angry, Captain Queeg, when I'm having so much fun
watching you ever more desperately roll those steel balls? You can end
the torture by simply saying, "I'm sorry I implied you were
intellectually dishonest when I had no cause to do so." Wouldn't that be
easier than continuing to make a pathetic fool of yourself in public?
You have been hoisted on your own petard so why don't you come on down?
Of course, if you have any reason whatever for having called me
intellectually dishonest, I would like to hear it and consider it. If it
is valid I will be more than happy to apologize to you. But
baldersnipping just gives you the moral stature that is about equal to
Prince Ernst-Leopold's political stature.
John Steele Gordon
kabo...@worldnet.att.net
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Is "suspended" the same as "stripped" in this context? A
> "suspension" until the end of World War I, when all these things could
> be sorted out, would make sense --- but that is hardly the same thing as
> "stripping" one of something.
To strip in this context is hardly a technical term. It seems to me that
if I were Duke of Albany and I got a letter saying my dukedom was
suspended I would regard myself as having been stripped of it. (I'd also
be very upset!)
> > I might add that while the situation might have been different in 1919
> > (but I don't think so) the statement in old yellowstain's source: "Until
> > this date, his
> > > children were also entitled to the title of Prince or Princess of Great
> > > Britain and Ireland" is incorrect.
>
> I simply quoted what Marlene Eilers said and made that crystal clear.
Nor did I imply that you had done anything else. A little sensitive, are
we?
> [Why don't you drop that tacky "old yellowstain" pejorative ---- it just
> makes you appear even cheaper than you are. Yes, we know you say you
> acted in the play.]
Because you will neither apologize nor explain why you called me
intellectually dishonest. You are acting like a coward and I am calling
you one. It is not perjorative to call a short man short and your moral
stature can be measured in microns. And please note the subtle
introduction of the possibility that I am a liar in "we know you say you
acted in the play." Why on earth would I lie about that? believe me, you
all didn't miss much. Olivier I'm not. I'm not even Jose Ferrer.
> > According to "Honours and Titles in Britain," issued by British
> > Information Services, January 1975, "In the third generation, the
> > grandchildren of the Sovereign's sons are not born royal, and are only
> > peers if they receive or inherit a peerage. (Thus the Earl of St.
> > Andrews, son of the Duke of Kent, and great-grandson of King George V,
> > is not a prince, and he will never be a 'royal duke' even on succeeding
> > to his father's dukedom."
>
> The rules may have changed since 27 Mar 1919.
As I said. But I don't think so.
In fact, Eilers tells us
> they have, to some extent. She may possibly be mistaken.
A human trait you are so quick to point out. When someone else is
mistaken, of course.
Or Whitaker may be mistaken. Or the truth may lie somewhere in between
--- with a
> bit of sloppy or ambiguous wording on both sides.
It seems to me that the words I quoted from "Honours and Titles in
Britain" (not Whitaker) are positively pellucid in their clarity.
> I do have enough sense to know that simply picking
> up a copy of a document issued by British Information Services in Jan
> 1975 and selectively quoting from it will not make me an expert.
In the words of a great American, "There you go again" attacking my
intellectual honesty. I did not selectively quote from it, I quoted the
entire relevant passage. What is this compulsion you have to disparage?
Why can't you assume someone is honest until he or she gives you some
reason to doubt it?
> Beware the man of one book, particularly when we are talking about what
> was true in 1917 through early 1919 and he is quoting from a 1975 book.
All of which was duly noted by me. Can't you even read plain English. Or
does the fact that you have your own petard up your ass distract you?
I've told you how to get it out: two magic words: "I'm sorry." Or an
explanation. Either one will do.
John Steele Gordon
D. Spencer Hines
kabo...@worldnet.att.net wrote: [kaboodle=Kaboodle=John Steele Gordon]
>
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> > Is "suspended" the same as "stripped" in this context? A
> > "suspension" until the end of World War I, when all these things could
> > be sorted out, would make sense --- but that is hardly the same thing as
> > "stripping" one of something.
>
> To strip in this context is hardly a technical term. It seems to me that
> if I were Duke of Albany and I got a letter saying my dukedom was
> suspended I would regard myself as having been stripped of it. (I'd also
> be very upset!)
You are idly speculating by *imagining* a hypothetical scenario that may
or may not have actually occurred. That is fatuous, as well as
intellectually dishonest. It is also a bad substitute for thinking. We
need facts and evidence ----- not your speculative peregrinations as to
"how you would have felt" about such a hypothetical event, had it
happened to you.
>
> > > I might add that while the situation might have been different in 1919
> > > (but I don't think so)
What you "think" might be true is neither relevant nor useful and it is
intellectually dishonest, in spades, for you adamantly to continue
insisting on it.
the statement in old yellowstain's source: "Until
> > > this date, his
> > > > children were also entitled to the title of Prince or Princess of Great
> > > > Britain and Ireland" is incorrect.
> >
> > I simply quoted what Marlene Eilers said and made that crystal clear.
>
> Nor did I imply that you had done anything else. A little sensitive, are
> we?
>
> > [Why don't you drop that tacky "old yellowstain" pejorative ---- it just
> > makes you appear even cheaper than you are. Yes, we know you say you
> > acted in the play.]
>
> Because you will neither apologize nor explain why you called me
> intellectually dishonest. You are acting like a coward and I am calling
> you one. It is not perjorative to call a short man short and your moral
> stature can be measured in microns. And please note the subtle
> introduction of the possibility that I am a liar in "we know you say you
> acted in the play." Why on earth would I lie about that? believe me, you
> all didn't miss much. Olivier I'm not. I'm not even Jose Ferrer.
The fact that you played a role in "The Caine Mutiny Court Martial" is
also neither relevant nor useful in this discussion. Again, it is
intellectually dishonest and scurilous for you to continue bringing it
up.
>
> > > According to "Honours and Titles in Britain," issued by British
> > > Information Services, January 1975, "In the third generation, the
> > > grandchildren of the Sovereign's sons are not born royal, and are only
> > > peers if they receive or inherit a peerage. (Thus the Earl of St.
> > > Andrews, son of the Duke of Kent, and great-grandson of King George V,
> > > is not a prince, and he will never be a 'royal duke' even on succeeding
> > > to his father's dukedom."
> >
> > The rules may have changed since 27 Mar 1919.
>
> As I said. But I don't think so.
Read what I said, "supra." You do not come before us as an expert
witness on "Honours and Titles in Britain" --- neither do I claim any
such expertise. We need an informed opinion on this matter. Surely you
see that or you are being intellectually dishonest once again, because I
don't believe you are really that stupid.
Alternately, your judgment may be so thoroughly clouded by bilious anger
---- that you cannot reason coherently in this matter.
>
> In fact, Eilers tells us
> > they have, to some extent. She may possibly be mistaken.
>
> A human trait you are so quick to point out. When someone else is
> mistaken, of course.
>
> Or Whitaker may be mistaken. Or the truth may lie somewhere in between
> --- with a
> > bit of sloppy or ambiguous wording on both sides.
>
> It seems to me that the words I quoted from "Honours and Titles in
> Britain" (not Whitaker) are positively pellucid in their clarity.
Do you have an unambiguous quotation to the effect that the rules on
Honours and Titles in Britain were precisely the same in Jan 1975 as
they were in 1917, in 1918 and up to the Order in Council of 28 Mar
1919? Eilers at least quotes a precise date in 1919. You simply say
"1917" --- which is a point of potential interest. It would also be
useful to know if there have been any changes since 1974-1975.
>
> > I do have enough sense to know that simply picking
> > up a copy of a document issued by British Information Services in Jan
> > 1975 and selectively quoting from it will not make me an expert. [DSH]
>
> In the words of a great American, "There you go again" attacking my
> intellectual honesty. I did not selectively quote from it, I quoted the
> entire relevant passage. What is this compulsion you have to disparage?
> Why can't you assume someone is honest until he or she gives you some
> reason to doubt it?
Show us the evidence for your statement that Carl Eduard "was stripped
of his British titles in 1917." [a verbatim quote of your words] Give
us the precise date that those titles were "stripped." We are not
talking about Faith in Religion here. This data may go into many
discrete Genealogical Databases.
We need to get it right the first time --- not simply "go with the
flow." Genealogical Data should be thoroughly vetted before insertion
into a Database and your standards of proper checking [vetting] are
sadly deficient --- with your adamant insistence on the veracity of an
ambiguous and sole source.
You do recall how supremely confident and arrogant you were about 5 Oct
vice 4 Oct 1582 ---- with reference to the Gregorian Calendar --- don't
you ---- and you were dead wrong. It takes many "Attaboys" to wipe out
one "Aw-shucks" like that, before you rebuild your credibility as an
accurate researcher and reporter.
>
> > Beware the man of one book, particularly when we are talking about what
> > was true in 1917 through early 1919 and he is quoting from a 1975 book. [DSH]
>
> All of which was duly noted by me. Can't you even read plain English. Or
> does the fact that you have your own petard up your ass distract you?
> I've told you how to get it out: two magic words: "I'm sorry." Or an
> explanation. Either one will do.
>
> John Steele Gordon
JSG is obviously at the end of his rational and emotional tether at this
juncture --- turning to rancid obscenities --- and is not interested in
the real, relevant Genealogical issues before us.
Again, can someone with more than one book ---- as well as some
historical perspective on Honors and Titles in Britain --- comment to
the group?
Of particular relevance here is the treatment of those such as Prince
Charles Edward George Albert ["Charlie"] [1884-1954] of Albany, 2nd and
last Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence and Baron Arklow. From 23 Jul
1900, having succeeded his paternal uncle, Duke Alfred --- he reigned as
Carl Eduard, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha [Herzog v.
Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha].
By "those such as" --- supra, I mean those nobles who held both British
and German titles during World War I.
Carl Eduard, [the son of Prince Leopold [1853-1884] who died of
hemophilia] held the rank of General in the Prussian Army. He was placed
in an impossible position. He was denounced in England for being German
and in Germany for being English, as his sister, Princess Alice, once
pointed out.
Many years later, in 1935, Carl Eduard joined the Nazi party ---- but
that is another story.
Corrections and additions are Welcome.
--
D. Spencer Hines---"There're two kinds of people in this life, my
friend---those who have loaded guns and those who dig. You
dig."---Clint Eastwood as The Man With No Name [or is it Manco?] "The
Good, The Bad and The Ugly"---Sergio Leone [1967]
kabo...@worldnet.att.net
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> kabo...@worldnet.att.net wrote: [kaboodle is John Steele Gordon]
>
> <snip>
>
> > His son later became Duke of
>
> Actually, according to Marlene A. Eilers, op cit., Carl Eduard,
> ***[[1884-1954] Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (from 23 Jul 1900, having
> succeeded his paternal uncle, Duke Alfred.) Carl Eduard was the son of
> Prince Leopold of Great Britain and Ireland, Duke of Albany
> [1853-1884]]*** referred to above, who was born posthumously,
> **abdicated** 14 Nov 1918. "His British titles were struck from the
> children were also entitled to the title of Prince or Princess of Great
>
> To repeat, my source for the above is "Queen Victoria's Descendants" by
> Marlene A. Eilers, GPC [1987] p. 221.
>
> If John Steele Gordon has a conflicting source, which may be the case,
> for his postulated date of the "[stripping] of his [Carl Eduard's]
> British titles" as ***1917*** ---- he should state it and quote it
> verbatim ---- as I have above. Then we can sort out the truth of the
> matter.
My source is the 1996 Whitaker's Almanack, p. 136, which says "Charles
Edward (1884-1954), Duke of Albany 1884 until title suspended 1917, . .
."
I might add that while the situation might have been different in 1919
(but I don't think so) the statement in old yellowstain's source: "Until
this date, his
> children were also entitled to the title of Prince or Princess of Great
> Britain and Ireland" is incorrect.
According to "Honours and Titles in Britain," issued by British
Information Services, January 1975, "In the third generation, the
grandchildren of the Sovereign's sons are not born royal, and are only
peers if they receive or inherit a peerage. (Thus the Earl of St.
Andrews, son of the Duke of Kent, and great-grandson of King George V,
is not a prince, and he will never be a 'royal duke' even on succeeding
to his father's dukedom."
John Steele Gordon
kabo...@worldnet.att.net
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> You are idly speculating by *imagining* a hypothetical scenario that may
> or may not have actually occurred. That is fatuous, as well as
> intellectually dishonest. It is also a bad substitute for thinking. We
> need facts and evidence ----- not your speculative peregrinations as to
> "how you would have felt" about such a hypothetical event, had it
> happened to you.
With all due respect (which is to say, none) I don't need you to
instruct me in how to use the English language. I'm pretty good at that.
And obviously you haven't the faintest idea what intellectual honesty
is. Not surprising.
> > > > I might add that while the situation might have been different in 1919
> > > > (but I don't think so)
> What you "think" might be true is neither relevant nor useful and it is
> intellectually dishonest, in spades, for you adamantly to continue
> insisting on it.
Could you please explain how a person admitting he does not know
something for sure is intellectually dishonest?
> > > [Why don't you drop that tacky "old yellowstain" pejorative ---- it just
> > > makes you appear even cheaper than you are. Yes, we know you say you
> > > acted in the play.]
> >
> > Because you will neither apologize nor explain why you called me
> > intellectually dishonest. You are acting like a coward and I am calling
> > you one. It is not perjorative to call a short man short and your moral
> > stature can be measured in microns. And please note the subtle
> > introduction of the possibility that I am a liar in "we know you say you
> > acted in the play." Why on earth would I lie about that? believe me, you
> > all didn't miss much. Olivier I'm not. I'm not even Jose Ferrer.
>
> The fact that you played a role in "The Caine Mutiny Court Martial" is
> also neither relevant nor useful in this discussion. Again, it is
> intellectually dishonest and scurilous for you to continue bringing it
> up.
I didn't bring it up again. You did. And how is stating a fact
intellectually dishonest? Perhaps misspelling "scurrilous" is, however.
> You do not come before us as an expert
> witness on "Honours and Titles in Britain" --- neither do I claim any
> such expertise. We need an informed opinion on this matter. Surely you
> see that or you are being intellectually dishonest once again, because I
> don't believe you are really that stupid.
Actually it's a subject I have always found fascinating for some strange
reason, and I know a fair amount about it. I don't pretend to be an
expert however.
> Show us the evidence for your statement that Carl Eduard "was stripped
> of his British titles in 1917." [a verbatim quote of your words]
I did. Were you paying attention, or were you too busy admiring the view
in the mirror?
Give
> us the precise date that those titles were "stripped." We are not
> talking about Faith in Religion here. This data may go into many
> discrete Genealogical Databases.
I don't have a better date. I gave the best I had and if someone needs a
more precise date, perhaps they can schlep to a major library and
extract it.
> We need to get it right the first time --- not simply "go with the
> flow." Genealogical Data should be thoroughly vetted before insertion
> into a Database and your standards of proper checking [vetting] are
> sadly deficient --- with your adamant insistence on the veracity of an
> ambiguous and sole source.
This isn't a database, it's a newsgroup. We give the best information we
have and hope that others can take it from there. Nor have I adamantly
insisted on anything. If you'd read what I wrote, you'd find it hedged
about with qualifiers such as the "I think" you so vehemently objected
to. And my source is not ambiguous.
> You do recall how supremely confident and arrogant you were about 5 Oct
> vice 4 Oct 1582 ---- with reference to the Gregorian Calendar --- don't
> you ---- and you were dead wrong. It takes many "Attaboys" to wipe out
> one "Aw-shucks" like that, before you rebuild your credibility as an
> accurate researcher and reporter.
At least I apologized for having made an innocent mistake. Have you ever
apologized for anything, old yellowstain? Of course not, you've never
made a mistake. Just think, ijn 2000 years only two people have passed
through this vale of tears without making a mistake, Jesus Christ and D.
Spencer Hines.
> JSG is obviously at the end of his rational and emotional tether at this
> juncture --- turning to rancid obscenities ---
Historian runs amok! Read all about it!
John Steele Gordon
D. Spencer Hines
kabo...@worldnet.att.net wrote: [kaboodle is John Steele Gordon]
One additional example of John Steele Gordon's intellectual dishonesty
is so clear and obvious that it requires no further exegesis:
John Steele Gordon stated:
>His son later became Duke of
>Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and was stripped of his British titles in 1917. [JSG] [This is JSG's verbatim quote.]
D. Spencer Hines responded:
> Actually, according to Marlene A. Eilers, op cit., Carl Eduard,
> ***[[1884-1954] Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (from 23 Jul 1900, having
> succeeded his paternal uncle, Duke Alfred.) Carl Eduard was the son of
> Prince Leopold of Great Britain and Ireland, Duke of Albany
> [1853-1884]]*** referred to above, who was born posthumously,
> **abdicated** 14 Nov 1918. "His British titles were struck from the
> Roll of Peers by Order in Council, on 28 Mar 1919. Until this date, his
> children were also entitled to the title of Prince or Princess of Great
> Britain and Ireland."
>
> To repeat, my source for the above is "Queen Victoria's Descendants" by
> Marlene A. Eilers, GPC [1987] p. 221. [DSH]
Hines then requested that Gordon reveal his source for the stripping of
the British titles:
> If John Steele Gordon has a conflicting source, which may be the case,
> for his postulated date of the "[stripping] of his [Carl Eduard's]
> British titles" as ***1917*** ---- he should state it and quote it
> verbatim ---- as I have above. Then we can sort out the truth of the
> matter.
Gordon responded:
My source is the 1996 Whitaker's Almanack, p. 136, which says "Charles
Edward (1884-1954), Duke of Albany 1884 until title suspended 1917, . .
."
So, John Steele Gordon did not give us an accurate quote until I
specifically and pointedly requested it. When we get the actual quote
we discover that he has "enhanced" it --- and changed the actual word
"suspended" to "stripped."
John Steele Gordon says he is an "historian." Real Historians do not
play such cheap tricks, which are intellectually dishonest. This
manipulation of the quote is a cardinal sin in any serious scholarly
endeavor --- including Genealogy.
So, once again, we see that John Steele Gordon is willing to selectively
manipulate the evidence to suit his projected ends --- and has no shame
about doing so, in a blatant act of disregard for intellectual honesty,
scholarly integrity and respect for his audience. In short, he is a
cheap charlatan, whose views on serious subjects should always be taken
with a grain of salt.
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "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
kabo...@worldnet.att.net
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> One additional example of John Steele Gordon's intellectual dishonesty
> is so clear and obvious that it requires no further exegesis:
>
> John Steele Gordon stated:
>
> >His son later became Duke of
> >Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and was stripped of his British titles in 1917. [JSG] [This is JSG's verbatim quote.]
> Hines then requested that Gordon reveal his source for the stripping of
> the British titles:
Gordon responded:
> My source is the 1996 Whitaker's Almanack, p. 136, which says "Charles
> Edward (1884-1954), Duke of Albany 1884 until title suspended 1917, . .
> ."
>
> So, John Steele Gordon did not give us an accurate quote until I
> specifically and pointedly requested it. When we get the actual quote
> we discover that he has "enhanced" it --- and changed the actual word
> "suspended" to "stripped."
Old yellowstain needs glasses. There are no quotation marks in my first
statement. I was not quoting Whitacker's, I was speaking for myself. 1st
Amendment, all that sort of thing.
> John Steele Gordon says he is an "historian." Real Historians do not
> play such cheap tricks, which are intellectually dishonest.
You find me a historian who only quotes sources, and does not use his
own words.
This
> manipulation of the quote is a cardinal sin in any serious scholarly
> endeavor --- including Genealogy.
Changing something within quotation marks without clearly indicating
what you have done is indeed a cardinal sin. Taking information from a
source and putting it into your own words is called writing.
> So, once again, we see that John Steele Gordon is willing to selectively
> manipulate the evidence to suit his projected ends
There wouldn't be much point to unselectively manipulating the evidence,
would there? Writing, I guess, is not your strong point if you come up
with phrases like that. No wonder you advocate only quoting. And what
are my "projected ends" in this case? To misrepresent the facts
regarding the status of a British title that is titularly held by a
minor German princeling? To what end? To bring down western
civilization, perhaps?
--- and has no shame
> about doing so, in a blatant act of disregard for intellectual honesty,
> scholarly integrity and respect for his audience. In short, he is a
> cheap charlatan, whose views on serious subjects should always be taken
> with a grain of salt.
My views on non-serious subjects, I guess, are gospel.
You're going to have to do better than this to find out who stole the
strawberries, old yellowstain.
John Steele Gordon
D. Spencer Hines
DEATH OF "FRITTIE" ----- AGE 2
One of the sadder stories of the cruel fates suffered by Queen
Victoria's hemophiliac offspring is that of three-year-old "Frittie."
"Frittie" was Prince Friedrich Wilhelm August Viktor Leopold Ludwig of
Hesse and by Rhine, the older brother of Alexandra [Alix] who married
Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia. It is certainly a long name for such a
small boy. "Frittie" was born 7 Oct 1870 at Darmstadt.
Like most two-year-olds, [he was just over four months shy of his third
birthday] "Frittie" was rambunctious, ebullient and had a high "cuteness
quotient." He was the fifth child of Princess Alice Maud Mary of Great
Britain and Ireland [1843-1878] [Queen Victoria's daughter] and Ludwig
IV Karl, [1837-1892] Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine.
Just a few months before, "Frittie" bled for three days from a cut on
his ear. On the morning of 29 May 1873, a Thursday, young "Frittie" and
his older brother Ernst, who was 4 1/2, burst into their Mother's room
in a playful and affectionate mood. Princess Alice was still in bed.
The large, European style windows, which reached to the floor, were open
and "Frittie" ---- in his haste and eagerness ---- tumbled through one
--- and fell to the stone terrace, 20 feet below.
At first, "Frittie" seemed relatively unhurt. He had not broken any
bones and seemed only shaken up and bruised. But "Frittie" had cerebral
hemorrhaging --- bleeding in the brain ---- and by nightfall he was
dead.
His Grandmother Queen Victoria's poisoned gene had claimed its first
victim.
May "Frittie" Rest in Peace.
Sources:
"Nicholas and Alexandra, an Intimate Account of the Last of the Romanovs
and the Fall of Imperial Russia"; Robert K. Massie [Rhodes Scholar];
Atheneum [1967]; p. 142
"Queen Victoria's Descendants"; Marlene A. Eilers; GPC; [1987]; p. 186
Corrections and Additions are Welcome
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da
gloriam, propter misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V,
[1387-1422] King of England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates
D. Spencer Hines
Jean Ohai wrote:
>
> What I found compelling about the Massie biography was that he himself
> is the father of at least one hemophiliac child.
>
> > D. Spencer Hines ---Sources:
> >
> > "Nicholas and Alexandra, an Intimate Account of the Last of the Romanovs
> > and the Fall of Imperial Russia"; Robert K. Massie [Rhodes Scholar];
> > Atheneum [1967]; p. 142
> >
> > "Queen Victoria's Descendants"; Marlene A. Eilers; GPC; [1987]; p. 186
> >
> > Corrections and Additions are Welcome
That is absolutely correct. I believe it was probably his oldest son,
Robert Jr., born circa 1955. The Massies have two daughters and one
other son. I hope Robert Jr. is thriving.
Robert K. Massie graduated from Yale College in 1950 and then attended
Oxford University, as a Rhodes Scholar. He completed the prescribed
course of study, unlike William Jefferson Clinton, and was awarded the
MA in 1952.
Since then he has written several other fine books ["Peter The Great,"
"Dreadnought," "The Romanovs: The Final Chapter"]. Massie writes much
better than many [not all] "academic" Historians, in my opinion ----
probably because of that good Oxford historical education.
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da
gloriam, propter misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V,
[1387-1422] King of England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates
and chaplains --- after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415, --- while
D. Spencer Hines
Jacqueline Chisick wrote:
>
> I can't see what this subject has to do with Medieval Genealogy. Talk
> about irrelevant.....
>
> --
> Jacqueline Chisick
> Port Townsend, Washington USA
> jchi...@waypt.com
GEN-MEDIEVAL and soc.genealogy.medieval are also concerned with Royal
and Noble Genealogy in earlier or later time periods --- to include
Royal and Noble Descents.
Sara M White
The proclamation regarding the adoption of the name of Windsor for the Royal
House was dated 17 July 1917 and on 30 November 1917 George V issued Letters
Patent (not an Act, which is an error on my part) which stated that "The
titles of Prince and Princess will be confined to the children and
grandchildren of the Sovereign. The titles of Highness and Serene Highness
will be allowed to die out and the use of the title "Royal Highness" will
eventually be confined to the children of the Sovereign and the children of
the Sovereign's son ... in the third generation in the male line the younger
sons will assume the family name of "Windsor", with the courtesy title of
"Younger sons of a Duke". These Letters Patent seem to have been drawn up in
a hurry as they did not foresee an heiress presumptive so that George VI had
to issue Letters Patent before the birth of Prince Charles stating that the
present Queen's (then Princess Elizabeth) children "shall have and at all
times hold and enjoy the style, title of attribute of royal Highness and the
titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian
names" as otherwise he would have been born Earl of Merioneth and Princess Ann
would have been Lady Anne Mountbatten.
I don't know of any similar clear statement of the entitlement to titles in
legitimate male line descendants before George V's statement above and a quick
glance at the family tree of the Royal family of Great Britain since the Act
of Union shows it was only relevant to the son of Prince Arthur of Connaught
and to the children of Karl Edvard of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha which started to this
discussion. I had a quick look at The Times to see how the birth of these
children were announced but all that was said was "a son" etc and since they
were all still small children when World War I broke out I can't think of
where they might be mentioned in their own right where one could see how they
are styled.
The only other thing I can think of which might shed some light on the matter
would be the arguments made during Prince Ernst August of Hanover's
(1914-1987) action for British citizenship in 1955/6. The judgement was (in
very simple terms) that the Act of Settlement gave British citizenship to
anyone in the line of succession. It seems to me that there might have been
something said about the entitlement to titles, but I don't know and I am not
volunteering to read the reports to find out!
SMW
----------
From: Medieval Genealogy Discussion List on behalf of D. Spencer Hines
Sent: 05 August 1997 22:09
To: GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM
Subject: Re: Ernst-Leopold [Was: George Rex]
At 07:58 PM 8/5/97 +0000, Sara M. White wrote:
>As to the entitlement to the title of Prince of Great Britain and Ireland, he
>is right. The Act which limited it to the children and grandchildren in the
>male line of the sovereign is from the reign of George V (I forget the exact
>date and the book is at work!).
>
>> > His son later became Duke of
>> > Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and was stripped of his British titles in 1917.
[John Steele Gordon]
>>
>> Actually, according to Marlene A. Eilers, op cit., Carl Eduard,
>> ***[[1884-1954] Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (from 23 Jul 1900, having
>> succeeded his paternal uncle, Duke Alfred.) Carl Eduard was the son of
>> Prince Leopold of Great Britain and Ireland, Duke of Albany
>> [1853-1884]]*** referred to above, who was born posthumously,
>> **abdicated** 14 Nov 1918. "His British titles were struck from the
>> Roll of Peers by Order in Council, on 28 Mar 1919. Until this date, his
>> children were also entitled to the title of Prince or Princess of Great
>> Britain and Ireland."
[D. Spencer Hines]
>>
>> To repeat, my source for the above is "Queen Victoria's Descendants" by
>> Marlene A. Eilers, GPC [1987] p. 221.
[D. Spencer Hines]
>>
>> If John Steele Gordon has a conflicting source, which may be the case,
>> for his postulated date of the "[stripping] of his [Carl Eduard's]
>> British titles" as ***1917*** ---- he should state it and quote it
>> verbatim ---- as I have above. Then we can sort out the truth of the
>> matter.
[D. Spencer Hines]
>
>My source is the 1996 Whitaker's Almanack, p. 136, which says "Charles
>Edward (1884-1954), Duke of Albany 1884 until title suspended 1917, . . ."
[John Steele Gordon]
>
>I might add that while the situation might have been different in 1919
>(but I don't think so) the statement in old yellowstain's source: "Until
>this date, his children were also entitled to the title of Prince or
Princess of Great
>Britain and Ireland" is incorrect.
[John Steele Gordon]
>
>According to "Honours and Titles in Britain," issued by British
>Information Services, January 1975, "In the third generation, the
>grandchildren of the Sovereign's sons are not born royal, and are only
>peers if they receive or inherit a peerage. (Thus the Earl of St.
>Andrews, son of the Duke of Kent, and great-grandson of King George V,
>is not a prince, and he will never be a 'royal duke' even on succeeding
>to his father's dukedom."
[John Steele Gordon]
Dear Sara M. White,
I hope you can find the book and citation you mention, at work, and post
your findings.
Since George V was King from 1910 to 1936, it would be interesting to know
the precise date when the Act you refer to was issued and how it read.
Thank you kindly.
Sincerely, Spencer Hines
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)