Royal Family of Europe
Sam Sloan
I have gone on a binge of making family trees lately and I have just
made a family tree of all or almost all of the Royal Families of
Europe combined.
One would have thought that many people had done this and that this
was commonly available. I certainly did. However, I could not find any
such thing anywhere on the Internet. Of course, there were a few bits
and pieces here and there, but I could not find anything satisfactory
for serious research.
I was reluctant to post what I have come up with, because people on
the tree I have created are famous. This means that if there are
errors (and I am sure there are many) everybody will jump on me
because almost everybody knows something about at least somebody on my
tree. I wish to be notified of any mistakes, errors and corrections,
so that I can make corrections before too many others notice it.
There are some really famous and important people on my family tree,
such as Princess Diana for example. Even some of her in-laws are
famous and important as well!
Please do blame me entirely for any mistakes. What I started with was
a jumbled mess. At the same time, I need to be thankful to the
hundreds of people who have made contributions which have I compiled
together to create this.
Here are a few of the famous people on my tree. These people are also
useful as bookmarks to navigate around my tree:
Princess Diana http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg24.htm#65
Anastasia Romanov, now living in quiet retirement in Beverly Hills
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg25.htm#669
King Louis XVI of France
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg05.htm#193
Ivan the Terrible, Czar of Russia
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg05.htm#1932
William the Conqueror
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg12.htm#2093
Prince William http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg24.htm#2036C
Queen Elizabeth I http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg10.htm#909
I am not really up on my Holy Roman Emperors, but I have many of them.
I have complete links from Prince Charles back to the ancestors of
William the Conqueror and complete links from Czar Nicholas II back to
the ancestors of Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great and Peter the
Great.
All of these people are related to each other, because of the
wife-swapping system which went on. For example, the King of England
would give his daughter to the King of Prussia in exchange for the
daughter of that king. Because of this process, it is not correct to
talk about the Royal Families of Europe, because they were all just
one big not always happy family. (I am not sure how King Zog of
Albania fit into this, however.)
The index pages are:
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafx.htm Index Page
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafx2.htm Surname List
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafx3.htm Name Index
I have created a new sub-directory for this family tree, because the
directory below it contains the same file names but is the family tree
for Thomas Jefferson and his slaves instead, plus a few American
Presidents such as Kennedy, Reagan and Baby Bush and Papa Bush.
The Hindu Kush Mountains have been in the news a lot lately, since the
US Marines are getting ready to land there. My daughter is in the
Marines and her mother's genealogy can be found in a book entitled
"Tribes of the Hindu Kush" by John Biddulph, because her mother is
descended from the Royal Family of Chitral. That genealogy, which I
copied from "Tribes of the Hindu Kush", is on my website at
http://www.anusha.com/pafg81.htm#2501
Also I have posted Ronald Reagan's Family Tree at
http://www.ishipress.com/pafg26.htm#2859
Sam Sloan
nusrat rizvi
reasonable person giving a F*** about
the inbred idiots you write about with such enthusiasm..
If you feel compelled to write such accolade of the morons
can you at least do so in a group where others like you
sit around to discuss subjects of shared interests and not offend others
who don't give a toss about the royal thieves.
There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct,
or more uncertain in its outcome, than to take the lead in introducing a new
order of things.
Niccolo Machiavelli
"Sam Sloan" <s...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:3bb83ec...@ca.news.verio.net...
Ian Cairns
>
> I have gone on a binge of making family trees lately and I have just
> made a family tree of all or almost all of the Royal Families of
> Europe combined.
>
> One would have thought that many people had done this and that this
> was commonly available. I certainly did. However, I could not find any
> such thing anywhere on the Internet. Of course, there were a few bits
> and pieces here and there, but I could not find anything satisfactory
> for serious research.
>
> I was reluctant to post what I have come up with, because people on
> the tree I have created are famous. This means that if there are
> errors (and I am sure there are many) everybody will jump on me
> because almost everybody knows something about at least somebody on my
> tree. I wish to be notified of any mistakes, errors and corrections,
> so that I can make corrections before too many others notice it.
>
> There are some really famous and important people on my family tree,
> such as Princess Diana for example. Even some of her in-laws are
> famous and important as well!
>
> Please do blame me entirely for any mistakes. What I started with was
> a jumbled mess. At the same time, I need to be thankful to the
> hundreds of people who have made contributions which have I compiled
> together to create this.
To quote from your Page 01:
"James IV King Of SCOTLAND [Parents] was born on 17 Mar 1472/1473 in Of,
Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland. He died on 9 Sep 1513 in Battle Of
Flodden, Branxton, Northumberland, England and was buried in 1513 in ,
Richmond, Surrey, England. James married Franz Otto, Duke Of
BRUNSWICK-LhUNEBURG on 8 Aug 1503 in Holyrood Abbey, Edinburgh,
Mid-Lothian, Scotland.
Other marriages:
SCOTLAND, Margaret Queen Of
Franz Otto, Duke Of BRUNSWICK-LhUNEBURG [Parents] was born on 20 Jun
1530 in Of, Lhuneburg, Hannover, Prussia. He died on 29 Apr 1559. Franz
married James IV King Of SCOTLAND on 8 Aug 1503 in Holyrood Abbey,
Edinburgh, Mid-Lothian, Scotland.
They had the following children:
M i James V King Of SCOTLAND was born on 10 Apr 1512 and died on 14
Dec 1542.
<snip>"
If this started as a 'jumbled mess', then it still bears an uncanny
resemblance to a jumbled mess. It is still not 'satisfactory for serious
research'. You should have run this through some sort of quality check
before going as public as you already have.
Ian
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
Your letter impressed me by the youthfull enthusiasm, the huge
ambition, and the good intentions, coupled with an amazing lack
of information about the many excellent and all of them maligned
on this list of "experts" -- mostly in how to discourage any new talent
that might in some way challenge their feelings of exclusivity on the
matter...
It's good to see someone putting such a big effort forward on their own,
& keeping it straight is a sign of talent; I'd figure you for one of the
rising stars, given a continual progress & perfectioning of research
techniques -- & if you survive the gauntlet of the turkeys around here...
just use your delet button before reading too much of the poison,
Find some buddies to help you laugh it off when the going gets rough,
& you'll do fine.
NEVER do like I do, and answer them as if they were reasoning
human beings; they prey on your energy & go weird with the bloodlust,
tend to kill one's enthusiasm for the work; don't let them do that...
There are a lot of good sites like yours, but all of them have errors...
& a lot of good data...
I have no idea what sort of sources you used but it will never be
enough for this bunch if they decide to lambast you! Let them blow
over and go on about your business fixing any errors anyone points
out, but don't take just anyone's word for things; they screw up too!
Even the best of them! and not just once or twice... Your actually
doing fine... the important thing is to do it, and to keep doing it!
What you might do however, is to look over some of the other good
global sites, crosscheck your own & check several sources on
material that conflicts... I'll try to find a list of urls, or perhaps those
on the list who think they have good royals compendiums, could all
repost them, so we can make a list and crosscheck them all against
each other, to try to wrestle out the probable Truth...
Stewart Baldwin has some, Chris Phillips, Chris & Tom Tinney,
Brian Tompsett (much maligned but very comprehensive) I think
Therav as well... surely more...
But considering some of the nasty stuff that's going on, (& it's not
even me!) I feel reassured I'm in good and innocent company.
Take it as an honor; means you make them feel threatened!
What if they dont discourage you, & this great beginning means
you someday outdo them?
Keep em worried! That way they'll keep on doing their best!
Say thank you to the boy for keeping you on your toes!
Annie
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Sam Sloan <s...@ishipress.com>
Ą : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : lundi 1 octobre 2001 12:28
Objet : Royal Family of Europe
>Royal Family of Europe
>
>I have gone on a binge of making family trees lately and I have just
>made a family tree of all or almost all of the Royal Families of
>Europe combined.
>
>One would have thought that many people had done this and that this
>was commonly available. I certainly did. However, I could not find any
>such thing anywhere on the Internet. Of course, there were a few bits
>and pieces here and there, but I could not find anything satisfactory
>for serious research.
>
>I was reluctant to post what I have come up with, because people on
>the tree I have created are famous. This means that if there are
>errors (and I am sure there are many) everybody will jump on me
>because almost everybody knows something about at least somebody on my
>tree. I wish to be notified of any mistakes, errors and corrections,
>so that I can make corrections before too many others notice it.
>
>There are some really famous and important people on my family tree,
>such as Princess Diana for example. Even some of her in-laws are
>famous and important as well!
>
>Please do blame me entirely for any mistakes. What I started with was
>a jumbled mess. At the same time, I need to be thankful to the
>hundreds of people who have made contributions which have I compiled
>together to create this.
>
Sam
>
> All of these people are related to each other, because of the
> wife-swapping system which went on. For example, the King of England
> would give his daughter to the King of Prussia in exchange for the
> daughter of that king. Because of this process, it is not correct to
> talk about the Royal Families of Europe, because they were all just
> one big not always happy family. (I am not sure how King Zog of
> Albania fit into this, however.)
Henry VIII of England had six wifes.
I think that's because he fell out with the Pope
and became a muslim.
--
Samson
Robert W Fay
> Royal Family of Europe
<snip>
and Baby Bush and Papa Bush.
Sam,
I'm sorry but I was unable to locate the Bush's in the URL's given.
Could you please supply the direct URL's for those pages.
Thanks,
Bob Fay
Ian Cairns
I am neither an expert, nor a turkey, nor do I particpate in any 'nasty
stuff'. My previous comment was not meant to discourage you, and if it
has given that impression, then you have my sincere apologies.
My factual point was simply that, having typed in around 2000 souls into
your database and generously shared these on your website, on page 1 of
your information, you have a King of Scotland (male) marrying a German
Duke (male) and having a large family by him; the King had married the
Duke before the Duke was born; the King then died before the Duke was
born. Given the obvious effort that you made in collecting this
information, some simple checking would have been worthwhile before
publication. Good genealogy programs have a Quality Check function that
is meant to catch situations like the above. (e.g. Brother's Keeper |
File | Quality Check & Brother's Keeper | Other | Reasonableness Check)
There is an acknowledged need for a definitive single royal database.
Keep up the good work, and, in time, your database could fulfil this
need.
Regards
Ian
"Annie Natalelli-Waloszek" <Xan...@Wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:01c14a89$e44e5b80$LocalHost@fti/62hzcyc...
> Your letter impressed me by the youthfull enthusiasm, the huge
> ambition, and the good intentions, coupled with an amazing lack
> of information about the many excellent and all of them maligned
> on this list of "experts" -- mostly in how to discourage any new
talent
> that might in some way challenge their feelings of exclusivity on the
> matter...
>
> It's good to see someone putting such a big effort forward on their
own,
> & keeping it straight is a sign of talent; I'd figure you for one of
the
> rising stars, given a continual progress & perfectioning of research
> techniques -- & if you survive the gauntlet of the turkeys around
here...
> just use your delet button before reading too much of the poison,
> Find some buddies to help you laugh it off when the going gets rough,
> & you'll do fine.
>
> NEVER do like I do, and answer them as if they were reasoning
> human beings; they prey on your energy & go weird with the bloodlust,
> tend to kill one's enthusiasm for the work; don't let them do that...
>
> There are a lot of good sites like yours, but all of them have
errors...
> & a lot of good data...
<snip>
> But considering some of the nasty stuff that's going on, (& it's not
> even me!) I feel reassured I'm in good and innocent company.
> Take it as an honor; means you make them feel threatened!
> What if they dont discourage you, & this great beginning means
> you someday outdo them?
<snip>
BromN...@aol.com
Medieval web site. As we say in my part of town, "you're running with the big
dogs now." If you're looking for fairly comprehensive data against which to
compare your work, and haven't already seen it, the Hull Univ. site might be
helpful to you. Be aware though that Hull too is skewered from time to time,
and rightfully so. Accuracy is what everyone is trying to achieve in the
final analysis. Take a look at:
<http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/GEDCOM.html
Best wishes,
Bromfield Nichol
Doug McDonald
Sam wrote:
>
>
> Henry VIII of England had six wifes.
>
> I think that's because he fell out with the Pope
> and became a muslim.
Your're so wrong you are a stupid idiot.
He became a MORMON!
Doug McDonald
:-) :-) :-) for the terminally humor impaired
OK, maybe another 10,000 :-)
Nichol
BRUNSWICK-LhUNEBURG on 8 Aug 1503 in Holyrood Abbey, Edinburgh,
Mid-Lothian, Scotland.>>>
He DID? Wow, what a surprise! Well, I hope James and Otto had many
years of wedded bliss and marital joy.
.:Nichol:.
Bryant Smith
This appears to be your first posting to the
soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup and I am sure you
will learn a lot from it if you have the patience to
sort out the useful genealogical wheat from the
backbiting chaff!
The first thing I feel you must learn is not to be
discouraged if some of the experts here (of which I
do not pretend to be one) are rough on you when they
catch you out. We dilletantes just must not be afraid
to expose our ignorance here, lest we lose the benefits
of criticism.
I do not wish to discourage you from pursuing your
tree-making hobby, but perhaps even I can give you a
couple of useful pointers.
First let me say that I downloaded your GEDCOM and
imported it into Family Tree Maker, because the
one-generation-at-a-time presentations in your website
make for very tedious examination; and I have only just
taken a couple of glances at the index generated by my
software, and a couple of spot-checks, so I won't pretend
to be sure that what I did *NOT* find in your database isn't
buried somewhere under names I did not think to use. But
anyway, here goes:
After seeing that you used country-names like ENGLAND
and CASTILE&LEON, I assumed that I might find Hungarian
royalty using HUNGARY; but the index had nothing under
HUNGARY, likewise KIEV.
My next step was to check your ancestry for Catherine
Plantagenet, wife of Enrique III of Castile, and I found
-- ZIP!!! Apparently you missed two of John of Gaunt's
wives, one of whom, Constance of Castile, was Catherine's
mother. Constance is a gateway -- by no means the only gateway,
to the royal houses of Hungary & Kiev, and even into the
so-called Byzantine Empire.
So, without searching for errors to jump on, I can say at least
that, like Wednesday's child, you have far to go, if your
ultimate objective is a fully-loaded tree of European royalty.
There are a number of ways you can begin to flesh out your tree.
One of them is to use the Google newsgroups searchable database
with appropriate keywords, and specifying soc.genealogy.medieval
as the group to search. There you will almost certainly stumble
across gems like Todd Farmerie's ahnentafels of Teresa (of Leon)
and El Cid, and loads of descendant tables; and more importantly
they will be in threads in which possible mistakes are questioned and
discussed.
Another approach would be any one of a number of subscription services,
provided you take what you find with caution and go back to the
experts to verify. I like genserv.com, where you can get an
introductory subscription for just uploading your GEDCOM, and
where even a regular subscription is pretty cheap.
Good hunting!
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
s...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<3bb83ec...@ca.news.verio.net>...
Brant Gibbard
wrote:
>
>Henry VIII of England had six wifes.
>
>I think that's because he fell out with the Pope
>and became a muslim.
Would that be High-Mosque or Low-Mosque?
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@inforamp.net
http://home.inforamp.net/~bgibbard/gen
Toronto, ON
Allan Thomas Raymond
I think you have done an excellent job, but be prepared for some individuals
taking a pot shot at the accuracy of the information.
To these individuals just ask a simple question, "lets have a look at your
site", chances are they haven't got one.
I have only had quick look through the site and you may wish to do something
about the different spellings of the same surnames (or upper and lower case
formats) in your "Surnames list" for example Hesse-Cassel, HESSE-CASSEL and
HESSE-KASSEL. There are also about 40
HANOVER or Hanover. I assume there should only be the one entry.
One entry for amendment "Andrew of Greece and Denmark MOUNTBATTEN was born
on 1 Feb 1882. He died on 3 Dec 1944. Andrew married Princess Alice of
Battenburg in 1903"
Wasn't aware that Andrew was a Mountbatten, Mountbatten was an anglicised
version of Battenberg which applied from 1917 onwards.
Somebody picked up my incorrect spelling of Battenberg (correct version) a
while ago as opposed to Battenburg.
Allan Raymond
allan_...@btinternet.com
http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm
FreeBMD - putting birth marriages and deaths on the Internet
http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com/
"Sam Sloan" <s...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:3bb83ec...@ca.news.verio.net...
Gary Holtzman
>
> One entry for amendment "Andrew of Greece and Denmark MOUNTBATTEN was
> born on 1 Feb 1882. He died on 3 Dec 1944. Andrew married Princess Alice
> of Battenburg in 1903"
>
> Wasn't aware that Andrew was a Mountbatten, Mountbatten was an anglicised
> version of Battenberg which applied from 1917 onwards.
Andrew was neither a Battenburg, nor a Battenberg, nor a Mountbatten. Philip
adopted the name Mountbatten when he became a British citizen (although others
have pointed out here that the naturalisation process wasn't strictly necessary)
in reference to his mother's family, the Mountbattens. Ironically, Princess
Andrew never used the name herself; she was a princess of Battenberg by birth but
a member of the Greek royal house at the time of the name change.
--
Gary Holtzman
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Todd A. Farmerie
please set followups to soc.gen.med when responding. (It is now
crossposted to 5 different groups, which is just asking for
trouble.)
taf
Sam Sloan
out.
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg12.htm#938
The problem was caused by a combination of corruption in data plus a
bug in the program. I spent a few hours trying to figure out what had
caused this, without success. Finally, I simply deleted James V of
Scotland altogether and then added him back in as a new person and
re-married him to his three wives. He seems to be happy now and is no
longer insisting on being married to another man.
Even after I deleted his "marriage" to Otto, every time I married him
to a woman he mysteriously changed her into a man. That this could
happen is obviously a bug in PAF 4.0 which I am using. That is why I
had to delete him and start all over again.
One reason that I am thankful that you pointed this out is that in my
personal family tree I am descended from a person named Mary Stuart,
who was born in 1729.
She is said to have been a descendant of an illegitimate child of King
James of Scotland. See http://www.anusha.com/pafg32.htm#908
I have been asking which King James of Scotland, because there are
many.
However, I noticed a web site which said that King James V had seven
illegitimate children. If that is correct, then I am willing to bet
that that is the person they had in mind.
http://www.royal-stuarts.org/james_5.htm
Sam Sloan
Brant Gibbard
>She is said to have been a descendant of an illegitimate child of King
>James of Scotland. See http://www.anusha.com/pafg32.htm#908
>
>I have been asking which King James of Scotland, because there are
>many.
Bear in mind that the way to solve the problem of her ancestry is to
start with Mary and work upwards by trying to find out who her parents
were. See where that leads you, wherever that may be (and it may not be
where you think it will be, or you may never find her parents at all).
Many (well, most, ... well, lets face it, virtually all) family
traditions of this kind turn out to be false. Never start with a famous
person and try to find a link down from them to you. Always start from
what you know and work upwards.
If you find that the family tradition turns out to be true, then more
power to you. But if you start at the top and work downwards you may end
up investing a lot of time on people that turn out to have no connection
to you.
A more insidious danger of the top-down approach is that when you have
spent a lot of time trying to connect someone to you it is natural to
develop a sort of proprietarial interest in that person which can make
it very difficult to make realistic evaluations of the reliability of
the evidence.
Sam Sloan
<bgib...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>If you find that the family tradition turns out to be true, then more
>power to you. But if you start at the top and work downwards you may end
>up investing a lot of time on people that turn out to have no connection
>to you.
Although I just learned about this question a few months ago,
genealogists have been working on this question for 20 or 30 years and
probably for longer than that.
A lot of people are working on this because almost everybody in
American named Graham are related to these people and you can imagine
how many of them there are.
I think that the problem is that this Mary Stuart immigrated from
Ireland. Since she came to South Carolina (the story goes that her
family was intending to go to New York but they got on the wrong ship
and landed in Charleston South Carolina) people have been checking old
court and land and title records in South Carolina but they have no
information from Ireland or Scotland.
Is there any way to check on her birth or family in Ireland or
Scotland. All I have is that she was born in Ireland in 1729 and
married Robert Coulter there. It is also said that she is descended
from Levi Stuart and James Orr. Nothing comes up on any of the
commonly available databases.
http://www.anusha.com/pafg32.htm#908
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
wrote:
The reason for this is that when I update my site, my program moves
some, but not all of the names to different places.
Right now, Papa Bush is at http://www.ishipress.com/pafg09.htm#2556
Baby Bush is at http://www.ishipress.com/pafg03.htm#2544
A problem I had with this is that I could not find a good list of the
brothers and sisters of George Bush Senior. It was not to be found
anywhere on the Internet. Therefore, I went to the New York Library
and looked up the obituary of Prescott Bush in the New York Times, but
even there was no listing of his children and when they were born.
I have five children of Prescott Bush, father of George Bush Senior,
on my web site, but I am sure that this is not completely correct, so
if someone would correct me I would appreciate it.
http://www.ishipress.com/pafg38.htm#2497
Of course, I always knew that they were bastards.
Sam Sloan
PS According to my website, the grandmother of George Bush Senior was
Harriet Eleanor Fay. Are you a relative?
Louis Epstein
: Other than a select few idiots like yourself I can not imagine any
: reasonable person giving a F*** about
: the inbred idiots you write about with such enthusiasm..
Any reasonable person would admire Royalty with great enthusiasm.
: If you feel compelled to write such accolade of the morons
: can you at least do so in a group where others like you
: sit around to discuss subjects of shared interests and not offend others
: who don't give a toss about the royal thieves.
Refusal to revere Royalty is highly offensive.
I have trimmed off the chess group from followups,but otherwise
this is posted only to a group about Royalty,a group to which
Royal genealogies are highly relevant,a group about a country
that has suffered grievously from the loss of its Monarchy,
and a group about a country where it is treason to oppose the Monarchy.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
A Tsar Is Born
chosen to edit it or connect it. People don't get their titles. James V of
Scots is credited with eight wives, beating his uncle. You don't give
people's parents, when it would be interesting to make the connection. This
is not a family tree. I don't know what it is you're trying to do here.
There are so many excellent sites on European genealogy and history. This is
not one I would recommend to anyone who confused easily. Anyone interested
in the subject should certainly go elsewhere. Anyone who knows anything
about European royalty will only be annoyed.
Take it down and start over. FROM THE TOP.
Respectfully,
Jean Coeur de Lapin
MTaHT
Please search the internet for genealogy sites identified as Brigitte
(featuring Leo van de Pas), Stoyan and Roglo. These sites either contain or
have pointers to data on over 100,000 nobles, each. Even with these
half-million or so folks, you will have just begun to record the known ancestry
of the people who interest you.
From the size of your site's gedcom file (600+ kbytes), you will find many
leaves to fill out some of those bare branches on your tree.
Best wishes and good hunting,
Mike Talbot
Todd A. Farmerie
Sam Sloan wrote:
>
Sam,
We in soc.gen.med welcome the discussion of the genealogies you
are investigating. However, they are off topic in the other
groups to which you are posting this discussion. Do, please,
limit the discussion to only the relevant group (and if someone
else limits it, don't expand the discussion back out). Many here
are happy to help you, but the enthusiasm will cool rapidly if
your crossposts continue.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
groups and on-topic in others. Posting to six groups does seem to be
excessive. But I'd rather hear from him, rather than condemn him
casually out of hand without giving him any opportunity to state his
case.
This VERY thinly veiled threat is entirely counter-productive ---- new
evidence that Todd is simply inexperienced in dealing with matters of
this sort ---- wet behind the ears and full of himself ---- a very
common failing with young post-docs.
He deathly fears posting to more than one relevant group ---- something
he condemns, out of hand, as "crossposting" because he can't CONTROL
posts to and from those other groups ---- and Todd wants CONTROL ----
because he is young, inexperienced and still wet behind the ears. : )
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Deus Vult.
"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout
in the milk." ---- Henry David Thoreau [1817-1862] -- Journal -- 11 Nov
1854 --[1906]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3BBAA51F...@interfold.com...
Sam Sloan
And yes, it is true. Almost everybody is throwing brickbats at me now.
Sam Sloan
D. Spencer Hines
Just throw them back ---- the brickbats.
If you don't stand up for yourself here, folks will just let you twist
slowly in the wind.
But, if you show some spunk...anything is possible.
"The Lord helps those who help themselves."
Cheers and Best Wishes.
"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout
in the milk." ---- Henry David Thoreau [1817-1862] -- Journal -- 11 Nov
1854 --[1906]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:3.0.6.32.2001100...@ishipress.com...
Leo van de Pas
Criticism is not brickbats. I only have to look at the messages about your
site and these tell me that things are lacking.
You had a technical problem which you solved BECAUSE of the criticism.
Brickbats are only brickbats if the criticism has no grounds and only are
made to be negative. Don't fall for this "I m a victim" because you are not,
the criticism has helped you. Remain positive and keep improving your site.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
D. Spencer Hines
historical reason, evidence and facts.
That goes without saying ---- a precondition for success.
That's all we respect here ---- not emotions.
Deus Vult.
"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout
in the milk." ---- Henry David Thoreau [1817-1862] -- Journal -- 11 Nov
1854 --[1906]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
| Not I.
|
| Just throw them back ---- the brickbats.
|
| If you don't stand up for yourself here, folks will just let you twist
| slowly in the wind.
|
| But, if you show some spunk...anything is possible.
|
| "The Lord helps those who help themselves."
|
| Cheers and Best Wishes.
| ------------
|
| D. Spencer Hines
|
| Lux et Veritas et Libertas
|
| Vires et Honor.
|
| "Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
| news:3.0.6.32.2001100...@ishipress.com...
|
Matthew Harley
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
> You must, of course, stand up for yourself with genealogical and
> historical reason, evidence and facts.
>
> That goes without saying ---- a precondition for success.
>
> That's all we respect here ---- not emotions.
What he means is he will attack you whenever he thinks it might impress
people.
Matt Harley
William Addams Reitwiesner
>Thank you for your letter and I sincerely appreciate your kind remarks.
>
>And yes, it is true. Almost everybody is throwing brickbats at me now.
Not a brickbat per se, but a word of advice to a newbie like you (and all
other beginning genealogists):
I've lifted the following from your <http://www.anusha.com/pafg24.htm#1851>
page:
============== start extract ===========
>Richard WYLLYS [Parents] was born in 1573 in Tenny Compton, Warwick, ,
>England. He died on 10 Jun 1597 in Fenny Compton, Warwickshire, England and
>was buried in Church Of, St. Peter &, St. Clare. Richard WYLLYS married
>Hester CHAMBERS on 28 Nov 1838 in Stoke, Warwick, England.
>
>Hester CHAMBERS [Parents] was born in 1567 in Williamscote, Oxford, ,
>England. She died after 1597. Hester CHAMBERS married Richard WYLLYS on 28
>Nov 1838 in Stoke, Warwick, England.
>
>They had the following children:
>
> M i George WYLLYS was born in 1589/1590 and died on 9 Mar 1645.
> M ii William WILLIS was born about 1591 in , Tenny Compton, Warws.,
>England.
> F iii Judithe WILLIS was born about 1595 in , Tenny Compton, Warws.,
>England.
> F iv Marie WILLIS was born about 1596 in , Tenny Compton, Warws.,
>England.
> F v Elizabeth WYLLYS was born about 1598 in Of, Fenny Compton,
>Warwickshire, England.
> M vi Richard WILLIS was born about 1599 and died on 16 Oct 1628.
> F vii Anne WYLLYS was born about 1600 in Of, Fenny Compton,
>Warwickshire, England.
> F viii Bridget WYLLYS was born about 1602 in Of, Fenny Compton,
>Warwickshir
========== end extract ========
Take a closer look at the dates. Do you notice anything odd? I mean other
than the completely ludicrous marriage date.
You have the father dying in 1597, yet long after his death he goes on
having children, up to five years after his death. How plausible do you
think that is? Yes, there have been all sorts of technological
advancements with in-vitro fertilization, but this sort of stuff wasn't
available in 16th century Warwickshire.
The point I hope I can get across is to always, repeat ALWAYS, check the
dates for plausibility. If any of the dates fail (if a child is born more
than one year after the death of its father or more than one day after the
death of its mother, if the child is born when the mother is sixty or more,
if the child is born before its parents, etc.), then it doesn't matter how
reputable or otherwise accurate your source is, that particular connection
is bogus.
Even Cokayne's *Complete Peerage*, at V:59, claims that a woman married in
1670 was a granddaughter of a couple married in 1652! This is corrected in
vol. XIV, p. 303, but the lesson remains: ALWAYS check the dates for
plausibility, and reject anything that doesn't make chronological sense.
This is not to say that if it makes chronological sense then you can stop
checking further. Merely that if it does NOT make chronological sense then
you can (and should) reject it right there.
So, Sam, either the date of death of Mr. Wyllys is wrong, or the dates of
birth of his children are wrong, or the youngest children (at least) are
not his and have been given the wrong parentage by your source. Which is
it?
---------------
Oh, Sam, one more thing:
>I am descended from Mary Stuart, a woman who was Scot-Irish, who was
>born in Ireland in 1729 and who married Robert Coulter and came to
>South Carolina. Their daughter, Margaret Coulter (1755-1796), married
>Andrew Graham (1753-1821) who is my great-great-great-grandfather.
According to your webpages you're *not* descended from this Mary Stuart.
You're descended from one of the other wives of this Andrew Graham. Mary
Stuart is the mother of one of your step-great-great-etc.-grandmothers, and
is otherwise unrelated to you.
Hope this helps.
--
Ceterum censeo DSH delendam esse.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Tony Ingham
encouragement.
Why would anyone criticise TAF for referring to the gentleman as Mr.
Reitwiesner?
Tony Ingham.
Sam Sloan
I am not listed as a descendant of Mary Stuart but of another wife of
Andrew Graham.
Actually, there is a big controversy as to how many wives Andrew Graham
had, how long he lived and which children were by which wife. The will of
Andrew Graham has survived, but these questions are not answered.
The reason I posted this question here was that prehaps this group can
solve a family mystery, which is that the first wife of Andrew Graham was
said to a descendant of the Royal House of Stuart, in that her mother was
Mary Stuart whose father was said to be Levi Stuart (1690-1785) who was a
descendant (presumably illegitimate) of King James of Scotland. I have
posted this on my website at http://www.anusha.com/pafg32.htm#908
Just yesterday, a family member and researcher, Richard Kleinschmidt
<rk...@yahoo.com> , sent me the obituary of George Fleming Coulter
(1807-1889). I have posted the obituary at
http://www.anusha.com/pafg36.htm#1027 It says that George Fleming Coulter
was descended from the Scottish Royal Family:
" He was born in Robertson Co., Tenn., August 20th, 1807. His Father,
Robert Stuart Coulter, a lineal descendant of the Scottish House of Stuart,
enlisted in the Continental Army at the age of six-teen and served all
through the hardship of the Revolutionary war. His mother was Margaret
Fleming, daughter of George Fleming, an Englishman whose grandfather was a
knight, and had been a soldier in some of the old English wars, and was
descended from the English House of Fleming."
As you can see, this question has been around for a long time. I would
appreciate it if anybody can help solve it.
Sam Sloan
At 10:27 AM 10/4/2001 GMT, William Addams Reitwiesner wrote:
>sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote:
>
Rod Dav4is
1. Reject he date, keeping the relationship
2. Reject the relationship, keeping the date (and finding a new home for the
individual)
3. Both
Nothing is as simple as it first appears!
-R.
William Addams Reitwiesner wrote in part:
> 8><
> Even Cokayne's *Complete Peerage*, at V:59, claims that a woman married in
> 1670 was a granddaughter of a couple married in 1652! This is corrected in
> vol. XIV, p. 303, but the lesson remains: ALWAYS check the dates for
> plausibility, and reject anything that doesn't make chronological sense.
>
--
Regards, Rod Dav4is / P.O. Box 118 / Hyde Park, NY 12538 / USA
Genealogy, et Cetera: http://dav4is.8m.com 259 ancestral families, mostly
17th-19th century New England, total population: 60,525
Also: http://www.gencircles.com/users/dav4is/
Frank W Bullen
Apropos of the spelling of the name STEWART. Please correct me if I am
wrong, but my understanding is that "STEWART" pre-dates "STUART", which is,
I am told, the French version of the name. Does anyone know when the
change took place?
Regards
Frank W Bullen
Johannesburg, South Africa
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Sloan <sl...@ishipress.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Royal Family of Europe
> ______________________________
Arthur Murata
know all of the ins and outs of the Flemings, but I know of
one definite connection to King James IV of Scotland. This
is not an English Fleming family, however, but rather a
Scottish one at least as far back as the earliest name I
have, which is Sir Malcolm Fleming of Biggat & Cumberland
who was executed on November 24, 1440.
He was the great-great grandfather of another Malcolm, 3rd
Lord Fleming, b. c. 1494 & killed in the Battle of Pinkie
Sep. 10, 1547. This Malcolm married Janet Stewart, d. Feb.
20, 1563, who was an illegitimate daughter of James IV and
one of his better known mistresses, Isabel Stewart of Lorn,
d. 1557. Lord Malcolm and Janet Stewart had a daughter
named Margaret Fleming, who died Aug. 15, 1584, and married
John Stewart, the 4th Earl of Atholl.
Obviously this Margaret Fleming is far too early to be the
same one that you mention, but you might explore the
possibility that there is a relationship because of the
similarity of names, both given and family. If you think
there might be a link here that interests you, let me know
and I'll share what I have. Others on this list will know a
great deal more than I on the subject, but hopefully this
will be of some help to you. Coincidentally, I am 14
generations removed from my Margaret Fleming and possibly a
distant cousin of your's. Best, Bronwen Edwards
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Sam Sloan
some Graham Family members.
There are quite a lot of people interested in this subject because everyone
in America named Coulter and a high percentage of all those named Graham
are related to these people.
I am talking about thousands of people, perhaps tens of thousands.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
the most famous Royal Family Members in the front of my list, because
it is getting very hard to find people as my list grows bigger and
bigger. I now have more than 3500 names on my list.
Here are the 15 famous names and addresses:
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafx2.htm Index
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg27.htm#1C Anastasia Romanov
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg06.htm#2 King Louis XVI of
France
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg02.htm#3 Queen Victoria of
England
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg57.htm#4 Charlemagne, Emporer of
the Holy Roman Empire
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg05.htm#5 Ivan the Terrible, Czar
of Russia
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg12.htm#6 William the Conqueror
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg26.htm#7 Princess Diana
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg39.htm#8 Ferdinand III, Emperor
Of The Holy Roman Empire
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg10.htm#9C Queen Elizabeth I
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg26.htm#10C Prince William
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg35.htm#11 King Edward VII of
England
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg36.htm#12 King Ferdinand and
Queen Isabela of Spain
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg41.htm#14 King Juan Carlos of
Spain
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg02.htm#15 Archduke Ferdinand of
Austria
I have complete links from Prince Charles back to the ancestors of
William the Conqueror and complete links from Czar Nicholas II back to
the ancestors of Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great and Peter the
Great. I also have the Kings of France from Louis XVI back to
Charlemagne.
All of these people are related to each other, by blood or marriage.
Sam Sloan
Mike Burley
Sam Sloan wrote:
>
> I have updated and reorganized my Royal Family Tree. I have put 15 of
> the most famous Royal Family Members in the front of my list, because
> it is getting very hard to find people as my list grows bigger and
> bigger. I now have more than 3500 names on my list.
>
> Here are the 15 famous names and addresses:
>
> http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafx2.htm Index
> http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg27.htm#1C Anastasia Romanov
Anastasia, Maria, Tatiana, and Alexei were born at Peterhof Palace, in
Petrodvorets. The eldest child, Olga was born in the Alexander Palace,
Tsarskoe Selo (now Pushkin).
Mike in Oregon
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
Nichol
> I have just corrected this problem. Thank you so much for pointing it
> out.
> bug in the program. I spent a few hours trying to figure out what had
> caused this, without success. Finally, I simply deleted James V of
> Scotland altogether and then added him back in as a new person and
> re-married him to his three wives. He seems to be happy now and is no
> longer insisting on being married to another man.
Hmmm....
Do you think maybe James was trying to tell us something from beyond the grave? ;-)
.:Nichol:.
Sam Sloan
I do npt know, but what i do know is that I have discovered that even
though King James V was killed in battle in 1542 at age 30 after
inadvisedly deciding to invade England, he had children by at least
nine different women (some say more) si prehaps he is complaining that
I only listed three of them.
I have since corrected this oversight. I have also verified that King
Charles II had 15 mistresses (I knew this because it is mentioned on
page 192 of my book "The Slave Children of Thomas Jefferson" but I did
not know that the names of the mistresses were known and recorded in
history books.)
So I have listed on my website mistresses and illegitimate children of
King James IV of Scotland, King James V of Scotland, and Charles II,
George I, George II and George III of England plus King Ferdinand, the
husband of Queen Isabela of Spain.
So it seems that almost all of the major or important kings from that
era had mistresses and illegitimate children, and yet Prince Charles
is not even allowed to have one girlfriend.
Here are the places on my website where you can find these kings and
their mistresses:
King James IV of Scotland
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg46.htm#595
King James V of Scotland
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg13.htm#938
King Charles II of England
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg02.htm#816
King George I of England
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg43.htm#453
King George III of England
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg35.htm#35
King Ferdinand of Spain
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg36.htm#12
Please note that the program I use to create these family trees does
not distinguish whether the parents were legally married. Therefore,
although I have listed eleven wives for King James V of Schtland and
twelve for King Charles II of England, in reality they were only
legally married twice. The rest of the women listed were mistresses.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
I do not know, but what I do know is that I have discovered that even
though King James V was killed in battle in 1542 at age 30 after
inadvisedly deciding to invade England, he had children by at least
nine different women (some say more) so perhaps he is complaining that
I only listed three of them.
I have since corrected this oversight. I have also verified that King
Charles II had 15 mistresses (I knew this already because it is mentioned on
page 192 of my book "The Slave Children of Thomas Jefferson", but I did
not know that the names of the mistresses were known and recorded in
history books.)
So I have listed on my website mistresses and illegitimate children of
King James IV of Scotland, King James V of Scotland, and Charles II,
George I, George II and George III of England plus King Ferdinand, the
husband of Queen Isabela of Spain.
So, it seems that almost all of the major or important kings from that
era had mistresses and illegitimate children, and yet now Prince Charles
is not even allowed to have one girlfriend.
Here are the places on my website where you can find these kings and
their mistresses:
King James IV of Scotland
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg46.htm#595
King James V of Scotland
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg13.htm#938
King Charles II of England
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg02.htm#816
King George I of England
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg43.htm#453
King George III of England
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg35.htm#35
King Ferdinand of Spain
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg36.htm#12
Please note that the program I use to create these family trees does
not distinguish whether the parents were legally married. Therefore,
although I have listed eleven wives for King James V of Scotland and
William Addams Reitwiesner
<snip>
>Please note that the program I use to create these family trees does
>not distinguish whether the parents were legally married. Therefore,
>although I have listed eleven wives for King James V of Scotland and
>twelve for King Charles II of England, in reality they were only
>legally married twice. The rest of the women listed were mistresses.
King Charles II of England was legally married only once.
Arthur Murata
seem to have missed at least one of the mistresses of James
IV, that being Isabel Stewart of Lorn who died c. 1557. She
was the daughter of James Stewart of Lorn, Earl of Buchan,
and Margaret Ogilvy, daughter of Sir Alexander Ogilvy of
Auchterhause. I don't know how many illegitimate children
this pair had, but there was at least one daughter, Janet
Stewart, who died on February 20, 1563, and married
Malcolm, 3rd Lord Fleming. This one is quite well
documented. If I my old eyes just slid over the information
on your site, ignore this post. Best, Bronwen Edwards
--- Sam Sloan <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote:
Sam Sloan
>Perhaps it was there and I just didn't see it...but you
>seem to have missed at least one of the mistresses of James
>IV, that being Isabel Stewart of Lorn who died c. 1557. She
>was the daughter of James Stewart of Lorn, Earl of Buchan,
>and Margaret Ogilvy, daughter of Sir Alexander Ogilvy of
>Auchterhause. I don't know how many illegitimate children
>this pair had, but there was at least one daughter, Janet
>Stewart, who died on February 20, 1563, and married
>Malcolm, 3rd Lord Fleming. This one is quite well
>documented. If I my old eyes just slid over the information
>on your site, ignore this post. Best, Bronwen Edwards
>
Thank you for your letter. Actually, I though she was on my list, but I
will look again.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
find from English-type spellings to their proper Spanish and German
spellings. I am sure that I did not make all the corrections, but I made
all that I could find.
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafx2.htm
One problem is that Öttingen is put behind the end of the alphabet by some
programs and cannot easily be seen.
At 04:39 PM 10/8/2001 -0400, Dennis J. Cunniff wrote:
>Sam,
>
>On page:
><http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg43.htm#453>
>
>you list PLATTEN-HALLERMUND, Charlotte (Sophia) Von as a mistress of King
George I HANOVER of England.
>
>She was King George's half-sister, not his mistress. According to vol. 14
of the Complete Peerage:
>“The stories that Sophia Charlotte was mistress of George I were
demolished in Ragnild Hatton,
>George I, Elector and King, 1879, pp. 23-4, 134-5.”
In this case, I have included a footnote, as many places still list her as
a mistress and I do not show either of the parents of King George I as
having a second spouse.
Sam Sloan
>(Your software also seems to be putting bizarre characters instead of
accented characters in
>capitalized surnames Léon -> LEbON, Aragón -> ARAGbON, Lüneburg ->
LhUNEBURG, Zweibrücken ->
>ZWEIBRhUCKEN, etc. I don't know if you can do anything about this).
>
>Best of luck with your database. There's plenty to correct, but as long as
you keep making the
>corrections you're one step up on those who DON'T correct when they are
notified of errors.
>
>Dennis.
>
Sam Sloan
>Hi!
>
>Apropos of the spelling of the name STEWART. Please correct me if I am
>wrong, but my understanding is that "STEWART" pre-dates "STUART", which is,
>I am told, the French version of the name. Does anyone know when the
>change took place?
>
>Regards
>
>Frank W Bullen
>Johannesburg, South Africa
Mary Queen of Scots was born on 7 December 1542 and became the Queen of
Scotland when she was only seven days old. King Henry VII of England, who
had just killed her father in battle, wanted for her to marry his son, who
later became King Edward VI. The English fought a battle against the Scots
at Pinkie near Edinburgh on 10 September 1547. Shortly thereafter, Queen
Mary was sent to France for her own protection. On 24 April 1558 at the
ripe old age of 15, she was married to a younger man, the Dolphin of
France, Francis, son of King Henry II of France and Catherine de Medici,
who was 14. This was for Mary's protection, because they were going to kill
her back in Scotland.
On 10 July 1559 at the age of 16, Mary became Queen of France, when Henry
II died. However, she was queen of France for only one and a half years,
because her husband died in December 1560 when she was 18.
The widowed Queen Mary returned to Scotland on 19 August 1561 and on 29
July 1565 was married to her cousin, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley. Henry
Stewart was murdered at Edinburgh on 10 February 1566, leaving an only
child, who later became King James VI of Scotland.
During her years in France, Mary Queen of Scots changed the spelling of her
name Stewart to the French version, which is Stuart. After returning to
Scotland, she continued to spell her name Stuart and gradually most of her
family members adopted her custom and spelled their names Stuart instead of
Stewart.
Thus, anybody in England or Scotland with the name Stuart instead of
Stewart is likely to be a relative of Mary Queen of Scots.
One point of particular interest to me is I have a relative in my family
tree named Mary Stuart. She was born 1729 in Gabinheough, Tyrone, Ireland
and died in Chester County, South Carolina. She was the mother of Margaret
Coulter, the first wife of Andrew Graham, who was my
great-great-great-grandfather. Andrew Graham had either two or three wives,
nobody knows for sure, and all of them were named Margaret, so I cannot say
for sure whether or not Mary Stuart was my great-great-great-great
grandmother. In any case, Family Histories have always said that Mary
Stuart was a descendant of King James of Scotland by his second wife, a
commoner.
By "a commoner", what they really mean is that she was a bastard, but this
does not bother me, as everybody has always thought that about me anyway.
Sam Sloan
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafx2.htm
http://www.anusha.com/pafx2.htm
D. Spencer Hines
Sam Sloan, as usual, simply hasn't done his homework.
The spelling change predates Mary, Queen of Scots.
Deus Vult.
"Young whelks and winkles, in pubs, do it, Little sponges in their tubs
do it. Let's do it, let's fall in love. Cold salmon, quite 'gainst
their wish, do it, Even lazy jellyfish do it, Let's do it, let's fall in
love. The most select schools of cod do it, Though it shocks 'em I
fear, Sturgeon, thank God, do it, Have some caviar dear. In shady
shoals, English soles do it, Goldfish in the privacy of bowls do it,
Let's do it, let's fall in love." ---- Cole Porter, Yale '13 -- 1928
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:3.0.6.32.2001102...@ishipress.com...
[sic] of
Ian Cairns
> >Hi!
> >
> >Apropos of the spelling of the name STEWART. Please correct me if
I am
> >wrong, but my understanding is that "STEWART" pre-dates "STUART",
which is,
> >I am told, the French version of the name. Does anyone know when
the
> >change took place?
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Frank W Bullen
> >Johannesburg, South Africa
>
> Mary Queen of Scots was born on 7 December 1542 and became the Queen
of
> Scotland when she was only seven days old. King Henry VII of England,
who
> had just killed her father in battle, wanted for her to marry his son,
who
> later became King Edward VI. The English fought a battle against the
Scots
> at Pinkie near Edinburgh on 10 September 1547.
<snip>
I think you mean King Henry VIII.
Ian
Roz Griston
site your source hines..when did this name change occur. prove it.
roz
hines smugly hurls a cheap shot and unverified info.
Nope.
Sam Sloan, as usual, simply hasn't done his homework.
The spelling change predates Mary, Queen of Scots.
Deus Vult.
<snip>
D. Spencer Hines
Sloan needs to get off his duff and do some research.
The facts are well known.
Hell, I've even posted them before.
These pogues and poguettes, such as Griston, are too damned lazy to dig
them out.
Supine, Lazy, Ignorant Pogues.
Further, as has been pointed out ---- Sloan has confused Henry VII with
Henry VIII.
He has made other asinine mistakes.
Ignorant Toad.
Deus Vult.
Fortem Posce Animum.
"Young whelks and winkles, in pubs, do it, Little sponges in their tubs
do it. Let's do it, let's fall in love. Cold salmon, quite 'gainst
their wish, do it, Even lazy jellyfish do it, Let's do it, let's fall in
love. The most select schools of cod do it, Though it shocks 'em I
fear, Sturgeon, thank God, do it, Have some caviar dear. In shady
shoals, English soles do it, Goldfish in the privacy of bowls do it,
Let's do it, let's fall in love." ---- Cole Porter, Yale '13 -- 1928
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
| Nope.
|
| Sam Sloan, as usual, simply hasn't done his homework.
|
| The spelling change predates Mary, Queen of Scots.
|
| Deus Vult.
|
| D. Spencer Hines
|
| Lux et Veritas et Libertas
|
| Vires et Honor.
|
Roz Griston
one would have to have an interest in the origin of the stewart/stuart
surname, for it to become common knowledge to the researcher. there are
many threads on gen-medieval, that have no interest in..therefore, i
don't subliminally catalogue the info within the cobwebs of my memory.
second:
if one had such an interest..that person would have to have been on the
list long enough to know you (hines) had posted on this info
previously. or anyone else for that matter.
third
in your dash to be arrogant you omitted to say this has been discussed
on the forum before; please check the archives for further information.
fourth:
learn to site your sources or refer readers to repositories of info if
you plan to use them to dazzle us with your brilliance or baffle us
with your b.s.
fifth:
i am left wondering if it worth my time to archive dive, for your
stewart/stuart name origins post..did you cite your sources back then
or just pompously post because it is common knowledge? many of us are
not lazy, we just want to make effective use of our time. care to cite
the year you cited your sources?
sixth: wow! a typo..sloan made a typo and someone caught it..wow!
report for a flogging sloan.
grumble scum
cheers
roz
-----Original Message-----
From: D. Spencer Hines [SMTP:D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 12:02 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Royal Family of Europe
Brant Gibbard
<jonme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:16:54 +0100, "Ian Cairns"
><ne...@cairnsfamily.org> wrote:
>
>>I think you mean King Henry VIII.
>
>They all look alike to outsiders :-)
Naaah, one was thin and one was fat. ;-)
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@inforamp.net
http://home.inforamp.net/~bgibbard/gen
Toronto, ON
Sam Sloan
>Hi!
>
>Apropos of the spelling of the name STEWART. Please correct me if I am
>wrong, but my understanding is that "STEWART" pre-dates "STUART", which is,
>I am told, the French version of the name. Does anyone know when the
>change took place?
>
>Regards
>
>Frank W Bullen
>Johannesburg, South Africa
Mary Queen of Scots was born on 7 December 1542 and became the Queen
of Scotland when she was only seven days old. King Henry VIII of
England, who had just killed her father in battle, wanted for her to
marry his son, who later became King Edward VI. The English fought a
battle against the Scots at Pinkie near Edinburgh on 10 September
1547. Shortly thereafter, Queen Mary was sent to France for her own
protection. On 24 April 1558 at the ripe old age of 15, she was
married to a younger man, the Dolphin of France, Francis, son of King
Renia
Scots' time in France.
Renia
Paul Moynagh
sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote: [re Mary Queen of Scots ]
> On 24 April 1558 at the
> ripe old age of 15, she was married to a younger man, the Dolphin of
> France, Francis, son of King Henry II of France and Catherine de Medici,
> who was 14. This was for Mary's protection, because they were going to
> kill
> her back in Scotland.
>
> On 10 July 1559 at the age of 16, Mary became Queen of France, when Henry
> II died. However, she was queen of France for only one and a half years,
> because her husband died in December 1560 when she was 18.
No kids because the Dolphin was not aud enough to perform?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Moynagh
pmoy...@argonet.co.uk
Paul Moynagh
> Thus, anybody in England or Scotland with the name Stuart instead of
> Stewart is likely to be a relative of Mary Queen of Scots.
>
But did not some of the 16/17C scottish Stewarts, not near kin to Mary QoS,
swap their 'ew' for a 'u' just to keep in fashion?
> One point of particular interest to me is I have a relative in my family
> tree named Mary Stuart. She was born 1729 in Gabinheough, Tyrone, Ireland
. . . . <snipped> . . . .
> . . . . . . In any case, Family Histories have always said that Mary
> Stuart was a descendant of King James of Scotland by his second wife, a
> commoner.
Which James? There were 5 before MQoS and 2 after. AFIK only two had 2nd
wives (JV and JVII/II), both duke's daughters. Are they 'commoners'? But
some had an awful lot of bastards (my wife has descent from one) - perhaps
from one of them? You say you don't mind.
If you can't trace to a younger son (whose descents must surely be fully
documented?) or a bastard son of a James, and other Stewarts did frenchify
their name, your Mary could still be related, if rather distantly. But you
might have to find a line going right back to a collateral of the Stewards
(sic) of Scotland. To all those early medieval Walters, who must have
scattered their seed pretty widely before the 6th Steward married Marjorie
Bruce and so begat the royal Stewarts. Quite a tricky hunt. Might be easier
to stick to finding out about Irish Mary's parents' Stuart family, and if,
when, and where from they migrated from Scotland.
Sam Sloan
Thank you for your letter. The answers to your questions are that I do not
know the answers to any of your questions.
There is a fairly large number of descendants from these people and at
least one other of them is a member of this group, but nobody has been able
to figure out the answers.
Regarding which King James, I have just been checking out all the
mistresses and bastard children of King James IV and King James V of
Scotland. There were many of them but so far nothing hits.
Sam Sloan
Mike MacKinnon
> At 07:59 PM 10/5/2001 +0200, Frank W Bullen wrote:
> >Hi!
> >
> >Apropos of the spelling of the name STEWART. Please correct me if I am
> >wrong, but my understanding is that "STEWART" pre-dates "STUART", which
is,
> >I am told, the French version of the name. Does anyone know when the
> >change took place?
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Frank W Bullen
> >Johannesburg, South Africa
>
> Mary Queen of Scots was born on 7 December 1542 and became the Queen
> of Scotland when she was only seven days old. King Henry VIII of
> England, who had just killed her father in battle, wanted for her to
> marry his son, who later became King Edward VI. The English fought a
> battle against the Scots at Pinkie near Edinburgh on 10 September
> 1547. Shortly thereafter, Queen Mary was sent to France for her own
> protection. On 24 April 1558 at the ripe old age of 15, she was
> married to a younger man, the
>Dolphin
Shurely shome mishtake? Dauphin of France? Or did she really marry a sea
mammal?
of France, Francis, son of King
> Henry II of France and Catherine de Medici, who was 14. This was for
> Mary's protection, because they were going to kill her back in
> Scotland.
>
> On 10 July 1559 at the age of 16, Mary became Queen of France, when
> Henry II died. However, she was queen of France for only one and a
> half years, because her husband died in December 1560 when she was 18.
>
> The widowed Queen Mary returned to Scotland on 19 August 1561 and on
> 29 July 1565 was married to her cousin, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley.
> Henry Stewart was murdered at Edinburgh on 10 February 1566, leaving
> an only child, who later became King James VI of Scotland.
>
> During her years in France, Mary Queen of Scots changed the spelling
> of her name Stewart to the French version, which is Stuart. After
> returning to Scotland, she continued to spell her name Stuart and
> gradually most of her family members adopted her custom and spelled
> their names Stuart instead of Stewart.
>
> Thus, anybody in England or Scotland with the name Stuart instead of
> Stewart is likely to be a relative of Mary Queen of Scots.
>
Highly unlikely..........
> One point of particular interest to me is I have a relative in my
> family tree named Mary Stuart. She was born 1729 in Gabinheough,
> Tyrone, Ireland and died in Chester County, South Carolina. She was
> the mother of Margaret Coulter, the first wife of Andrew Graham, who
> was my great-great-great-grandfather. Andrew Graham had either two or
> three wives, nobody knows for sure, and all of them were named
> Margaret, so I cannot say for sure whether or not Mary Stuart was my
> great-great-great-great grandmother. In any case, Family Histories
> have always said that Mary Stuart was a descendant of King James of
> Scotland by his second wife, a commoner.
>
> By "a commoner", what they really mean is that she was a bastard, but
No, what they meant was that she was not of 'Royal Blood.' It also means
that she was not of the nobility. She may have been a bastard as well, but
that's by the by.
Mike
Renia
> At 06:28 AM 10/23/2001 GMT, Paul Moynagh wrote:
>
>>In article <3.0.6.32.2001102...@ishipress.com>,
>>sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote:
<snip>
>
> Regarding which King James, I have just been checking out all the
> mistresses and bastard children of King James IV and King James V of
> Scotland. There were many of them but so far nothing hits.
Charles Stuart, the Young Pretender, who died in 1788 without leaving
legitimate children, is always good for a bet. His daughter, Charlotte,
was legitimised as duchess of Albany. Who knows how many others were
"descended from Bonnie Prince Charlie", and thus, from his father, James
Stuart, the Old Pretender, who died in 1766. Pretenders to the throne,
neither was a king, except to their descendants.
Renia
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
<mmack...@pgpower.com> wrote:
>> By "a commoner", what they really mean is that she was a bastard, but
>
>No, what they meant was that she was not of 'Royal Blood.' It also means
>that she was not of the nobility. She may have been a bastard as well, but
>that's by the by.
>
>Mike
>
>> this does not bother me, as everybody has always thought that about me
>> anyway.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>> http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafx2.htm
>> http://www.anusha.com/pafx2.htm
King James IV of Scotland had children by four different mistresses.
James V of Scotland had children by each of ten different mistresses.
King Charles II of England had 15 children by his various mistressses.
All of them were bastards.
Sam Sloan
Paul Linehan
"Mike MacKinnon" <mmack...@pgpower.com> wrote:
> >Dolphin
> Shurely shome mishtake? Dauphin of France? Or did she really marry a sea
> mammal?
The word dauphin means "dolphin" in French, as well as referring to
the prince-regent.
Paul...
--
Paul Linehan
plinehan at yahoo dot com/linehanp at tcd dot ie
I drink to keep body and
soul apart - O. Wilde.
"Mens sana in campari soda" - anon.
connochies
> >Hi!
> >
> >Apropos of the spelling of the name STEWART. Please correct me if I am
> >wrong, but my understanding is that "STEWART" pre-dates "STUART", which
is,
> >I am told, the French version of the name. Does anyone know when the
> >change took place?
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Frank W Bullen
> >Johannesburg, South Africa
>
> During her years in France, Mary Queen of Scots changed the spelling
> of her name Stewart to the French version, which is Stuart. After
> returning to Scotland, she continued to spell her name Stuart and
> gradually most of her family members adopted her custom and spelled
> their names Stuart instead of Stewart.
>
> Thus, anybody in England or Scotland with the name Stuart instead of
> Stewart is likely to be a relative of Mary Queen of Scots.
Highly unlikely! People were calling themselves Stuart a century before
Mary changed her spelling. "Black's Surnames" gives that spelling as far
back as 1429. Some were called Stuart before Mary, and some changed the
spelling afterwards. Not all of these would have been related as Stewart
was a trade name [like Smith or Baxter] as well as being the Royal Line. In
the local phone book here [in the Borders] there is Stewart, Stuart and
Stewert, though it can also be Steuart and Steward probably among others.
Allan
Saor Éire
who don't recognise parasitic royals. Now get to fuck.
Howard Beale
Saor Éire <freedom@here .co> wrote in message
news:SikB7.4797$j22....@news.iol.ie...
> In case you silly pricks did not notice this is SCI and we are a republic
> who don't recognise parasitic royals. Now get to fuck.
soc.culture.irish is a republic?
--
Howard Beale
"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore"
Alias Tom
>
>soc.culture.irish is a republic?
It's a theocracy.
--
The basic fact about human existence is not that it is a tragedy, but that it
is a bore.
- H.L. Mencken
Peter H.M. Brooks
Alias Tom <tpw...@acer.gen.tcd.ie> wrote in message
news:9r4kjr$eiq$1...@web3.tcd.ie...
Vanity, all is Vainty'.
--
High hopes were once formed of democracy; but democracy means simply the
bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people. It has been
found out. I must say that it was high time, for all authority is quite
degrading. It degrades those who exercise it, and degrades those over
whom it is exercised.
Oscar Wilde
Brant Gibbard
>"Mike MacKinnon" <mmack...@pgpower.com> wrote:
>
>> Shurely shome mishtake? Dauphin of France? Or did she really marry a sea
>> mammal?
>
>The word dauphin means "dolphin" in French, as well as referring to
>the prince-regent.
>
Shakespeare also uses the form "Dolphin" for the French heir on occasion
(in King John, I seem to remember).
Chic McGregor
<mmack...@pgpower.com> wrote:
No 'Dolphin' is correct, it is the French equivalent of the Prince of
Whales.
regards
chic
Todd A. Farmerie
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> Alias Tom <tpw...@acer.gen.tcd.ie> wrote in message
> news:9r4kjr$eiq$1...@web3.tcd.ie...
> > "Howard Beale" <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >soc.culture.irish is a republic?
> >
> > It's a theocracy.
> Or, rather, as Ecclesiastes put it far better, far earlier 'Vanity,
> Vanity, all is Vainty'.
If you wish to continue this discussion please reduce the number
of groups to which it is crossposted.
taf
Alan Smaill
> "Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
> news:3bd4bce...@ca.news.verio.net...
> > At 07:59 PM 10/5/2001 +0200, Frank W Bullen wrote:
> > >Hi!
> > >
> > >Apropos of the spelling of the name STEWART. Please correct me if I am
> > >wrong, but my understanding is that "STEWART" pre-dates "STUART", which
> is,
> > >I am told, the French version of the name. Does anyone know when the
> > >change took place?
> > >
> > >Regards
> > >
> > >Frank W Bullen
> > >Johannesburg, South Africa
> >
> > Mary Queen of Scots was born on 7 December 1542 and became the Queen
> > of Scotland when she was only seven days old. King Henry VIII of
> > England, who had just killed her father in battle, wanted for her to
> > marry his son, who later became King Edward VI. The English fought a
> > battle against the Scots at Pinkie near Edinburgh on 10 September
> > 1547. Shortly thereafter, Queen Mary was sent to France for her own
> > protection. On 24 April 1558 at the ripe old age of 15, she was
> > married to a younger man, the
> > Dolphin
>
> Shurely shome mishtake? Dauphin of France? Or did she really marry a sea
> mammal?
No, that's the English version of Dauphin.
...
> > During her years in France, Mary Queen of Scots changed the spelling
> > of her name Stewart to the French version, which is Stuart. After
> > returning to Scotland, she continued to spell her name Stuart and
> > gradually most of her family members adopted her custom and spelled
> > their names Stuart instead of Stewart.
The point being that the obvious French pronunciation of "Stuart"
is a lot closer to the intended sound than the French pronunciation
of "Stewart".
I doubt it was her choice to spell it that way, though.
--
Alan Smaill email: A.Sm...@ed.ac.uk
Division of Informatics tel: 44-131-650-2710
Edinburgh University
Helen Ramsay
He showed up in another thread earlier today! See "Does This Dang Deal
Work?"<g>
Cheers, Helen
Alan Smaill
You miss the point;
that doesn't make the *mother* a bastard, does it?
> Sam Sloan
Alan Smaill
Agreed.
But the spelling of the royal family name did change at that
point, AFAIK.
Not that you're saying anything different.
> In
> the local phone book here [in the Borders] there is Stewart, Stuart and
> Stewert, though it can also be Steuart and Steward probably among others.
Here too.
> Allan
The...@aol.com
Chic,
Shame on you! Your spelling is atrocious, and this subject is
OT........
Or did you do that on porpoise ?
John
Graeme Wall
The...@aol.com wrote:
Are you not confusing this with the thread on medieval Seals?
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
The...@aol.com
I may have been confused.
I am currently trying to trace my descent from an early Eel of Moray.
John
D. Spencer Hines
Eel or Lamprey of Moray? : )
Deus Vult.
"You're the top! - You're Miss Pinkham's tonic. - You're the top! -
You're a high colonic. You're the burning heat of a bridal suite in
use. - You're the breasts of Venus, You're King Kong's penis, You're
self-abuse. - You're an arch - In the Rome collection. - You're the
starch - In a groom's erection. - I'm a eunuch who - Has just been
through an op, But if, baby, I'm the bottom - You're the top." - [Famous
parody often attributed to Cole Porter, Yale '13 - 1934, but reportedly
actually written by Irving Berlin.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
<The...@aol.com> wrote in message news:c4.1cbf64f...@aol.com...
The...@aol.com
Hello Spencer,
Thank you for your query this afternoon.
I fear you have confused His Grace the Eel with that noted 11th century noblemen, Count Lamprey of Lens.
He was of course the father-in-law of Earl Whaltheof.
Regards,
John
D. Spencer Hines
How stupid of me. How could one have a Lamprey of Moray! I was
confusing him with King Henry I. : )
Thanks for the correction. <g>
Deus Vult.
Fortem Posce Animum.
"You're the top! - You're Miss Pinkham's tonic. - You're the top! -
You're a high colonic. You're the burning heat of a bridal suite in
use. - You're the breasts of Venus, You're King Kong's penis, You're
self-abuse. - You're an arch - In the Rome collection. - You're the
starch - In a groom's erection. - I'm a eunuch who - Has just been
through an op, But if, baby, I'm the bottom - You're the top." - [Famous
parody often attributed to Cole Porter, Yale '13 - 1934, but reportedly
actually written by Irving Berlin.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
<The...@aol.com> wrote in message news:74.122dd1b...@aol.com...
Leo van de Pas
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Meltzer" <jonme...@mindspring.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: Royal Family of Europe
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:16:54 +0100, "Ian Cairns"
> <ne...@cairnsfamily.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Mary Queen of Scots was born on 7 December 1542 and became the Queen
> >of
> >> Scotland when she was only seven days old. King Henry VII of England,
> >who
> >> had just killed her father in battle, wanted for her to marry his son,
> >who
> >> later became King Edward VI.
>
> >I think you mean King Henry VIII.
>
> They all look alike to outsiders :-)
>
>
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>There is more wrong, James V did not die in battle-------------
>Leo van de Pas
You are right. I stand corrected and thank you.
According to the article on "The Kings of Scotland", which appeared
in volume I [1904] of *The Scots Peerage*, edited by Sir James Balfour
Paul, page 23, King James V did not die in the battle at Solway Moor
on 24 November 1542. Rather, he "died of grief at Falkland, 14
December 1542".
Just wondering: How does one die of grief when he is only 30 years
old?
Sam Sloan
Leo van de Pas
Scots, the same one about whom was argued whether she was or was not the one
who started the name of Stuart.
That sentence of James King of Scots' second wife being a commoner, "and
therefor illegitimately born" is still rubbish. If every commoner was a
bastard, why did the commoners bother to keep on marrying? Being a commoner
and beinhg a bastard have nothing to do with each other.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com>
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leov...@iinet.net.au>; <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: Who srarted to use the name Stuart : WasRoyal Family of Europe
> At 08:23 PM 10/27/2001 +0800, Leo van de Pas wrote:
> >Sorry Sam, have a look at the bottom.
> >
> [snip]
>
> >There is a lot more to it and you seem to have missed a fair amount.
> >1.Matthew Stewart, 13th Earl of Lennox was in France from 1532 till 1543
and
> >I believe he was the first one to spell his surname as Stuart.
> >His son Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, marrried Mary Stewart, Queen of
Scots.
> >The Stewarts before (and including Mary) were Stewarts, the Scottish
Royals
> >afterwards were Stuart.
> >
> >2.Shock horror, Marie de Guise a bastard? Who told you that? The silly
> >discription that mentioned her as a commoner can be regarded as correct.
> >James V married first a Royal French Princess and after her death he
married
> >Marie de Guise, daughter of a Lorraine Duc de Guise, not hing common
about
> >that one.
> >Best wishes
> >Leo van de Pas
> >PS. I have been away for a week.
>
> I am sure that this is only a small fraction of what I have missed. All I
> have really done is complied information from a wide variety of sources
and
> merged them all together. In cases of conflicts, of which there are many,
I
> have simply made my best guess as to which one is right.
>
> However, in the above instance you have misread what I wrote. I have a
> possible ancestor named Mary Stuart. I say possible because my
> great-great-great-grandfather Andrew Graham had two or three wives and I
am
> not sure from which wife I am descended.
>
> His mother-in-law was named Mary Stuart. She was said to be descended
"from
> King James of Scotland by his second wife, a commoner."
>
> The family histories do not say which King James of Scotland. Now that I
> have been studying the family histories of the various King James of
> Scotland, I have learned what you already knew, which is that most of them
> had a string of mistresses and a bunch of bastard children. Most of these
> bastard children are nevertheless considered royalty. There are so many
> that I suspect that many people claimed to be the bastard son of the king
> when they were not.
>
> When I wrote "by his second wife, a commoner", I was not writing about
> Marie de Guise or about King James V. I was writing about the ancestor of
> my ancestor, Mary Stuart. I realize that Mary Queen of Scots was also
named
> Mary Stuart, but she was not my grandmother, as far as I know.
>
> Another member of this group has sent me privately a list of Mary Stuarts
> who were in America at that time. The name was much more common than I had
> imagined.
Sam Sloan
>I understood, apparently wronly, that we were talking about Mary, Queen of
>Scots, the same one about whom was argued whether she was or was not the one
>who started the name of Stuart.
>
>That sentence of James King of Scots' second wife being a commoner, "and
>therefor illegitimately born" is still rubbish. If every commoner was a
>bastard, why did the commoners bother to keep on marrying? Being a commoner
>and beinhg a bastard have nothing to do with each other.
>Leo van de Pas
However, in this case, my ancestor, Mary Stuart, was descended from the
supposed "second wife" of King James of Scotland.
We know all of the legal wives of the Kings of Scotland and their children.
Most of the kings had only one legal wife. King James V was an exception,
but that was because his first wife died only a few months after they were
married.
If our Mary Stuart were the descendant of a legal wife of any King James,
then my name would be in Burke's Peerage. I have not looked, but I am
fairly certain that my name is not there.
Sam Sloan
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers
> old?
>
> Sam Sloan
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
Perhaps because grief is not a malady of the geriatric but can strike at any
age group.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),
Auld Bob Peffers,
b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
Web Site, *The Eck's Files*
http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
D. Spencer Hines
Sam Sloan
--------------------
Vide infra pro risibus.
1. Twaddle.
2. False Premise.
3. Wacko, Berkeley, Acid-Head Ratiocination.
4. "Free Speech" Does Not Mean Coherent Speech.
Deus Vult.
"You're the top! - You're a Waldorf salad. - You're the top! - You're a
Berlin ballad. You're a baby grand of a lady and a gent, You're an old
Dutch master, You're Mrs. Astor, You're Pepsodent. You're romance,
You're the steppes of Russia, You're the pants on a Roxy usher. I'm a
lazy lout that's just about to stop, But if, baby, I'm the bottom -
You're the top!" - [Cole Porter, Yale '13 - 1934. The sixth sentence
supra was reportedly Cole's favourite in the entire song. ---- DSH]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:3.0.6.32.2001102...@ishipress.com...
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers" <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:9rep9j$ks4$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
> news:3bdaadd4...@ca.news.verio.net...
> > On 27 Oct 2001 06:10:36 -0600, leov...@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas)
> snip> Just wondering: How does one die of grief when he is only 30 years
> > old?
any
> age group.
A W-S
j...@watson.ibm.com
on Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:57:58 GMT,
sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes:
<snip>
>According to the article on "The Kings of Scotland", which appeared
>in volume I [1904] of *The Scots Peerage*, edited by Sir James Balfour
>Paul, page 23, King James V did not die in the battle at Solway Moor
>on 24 November 1542. Rather, he "died of grief at Falkland, 14
>December 1542".
>
>Just wondering: How does one die of grief when he is only 30 years
>old?
Perhaps he killed himself.
James B. Shearer
D. Spencer Hines
The Battle is _Solway Moss_ ---- 1542 ---- NOT _"Solway Moor"_.
James V was gravely depressed by the defeat of his army by the English,
under the command of Sir Thomas Wharton. It was a terrible rout.
Deus Vult.
"You're the top! - You're a Waldorf salad. - You're the top! - You're a
Berlin ballad. You're a baby grand of a lady and a gent, You're an old
Dutch master, You're Mrs. Astor, You're Pepsodent. You're romance,
You're the steppes of Russia, You're the pants on a Roxy usher. I'm a
lazy lout that's just about to stop, But if, baby, I'm the bottom -
You're the top!" - [Cole Porter, Yale '13 - 1934. The sixth sentence
supra was reportedly Cole's favourite in the entire song. ---- DSH]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
<j...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:20011027....@yktvmv.WATSON.IBM.COM...
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Just wondering: How does one die of grief when he is only 30 years
> old?
It probably had something to do with someone cross-posting to
five different newsgroups. Such rude behavior is sufficient to
mortify anyone.
taf
connochies
Quite possible as he had suffered various catastrophes. He had lost his two
sons the previous year. The news of his wife giving birth to a daughter who
was not expected to live reached him just a few days after Solway Moss. Add
all that to the fiasco of the battle when the army fell to bits through
sheer incompetence of the leaders and I can imagine he was pretty down in
the mouth.
Allan
> James B. Shearer
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: Royal Family of Europe
> At 07:59 PM 10/5/2001 +0200, Frank W Bullen wrote:
> >Hi!
> >
> >Apropos of the spelling of the name STEWART. Please correct me if I am
> >wrong, but my understanding is that "STEWART" pre-dates "STUART", which
is,
> >I am told, the French version of the name. Does anyone know when the
> >change took place?
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Frank W Bullen
> >Johannesburg, South Africa
>
> Mary Queen of Scots was born on 7 December 1542 and became the Queen
> of Scotland when she was only seven days old. King Henry VIII of
> England, who had just killed her father in battle, wanted for her to
> marry his son, who later became King Edward VI. The English fought a
> battle against the Scots at Pinkie near Edinburgh on 10 September
> 1547. Shortly thereafter, Queen Mary was sent to France for her own
> protection. On 24 April 1558 at the ripe old age of 15, she was
> married to a younger man, the Dolphin of France, Francis, son of King
> Henry II of France and Catherine de Medici, who was 14. This was for
> Mary's protection, because they were going to kill her back in
> Scotland.
>
> On 10 July 1559 at the age of 16, Mary became Queen of France, when
> Henry II died. However, she was queen of France for only one and a
> half years, because her husband died in December 1560 when she was 18.
>
> The widowed Queen Mary returned to Scotland on 19 August 1561 and on
> 29 July 1565 was married to her cousin, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley.
> Henry Stewart was murdered at Edinburgh on 10 February 1566, leaving
> an only child, who later became King James VI of Scotland.
>
> During her years in France, Mary Queen of Scots changed the spelling
> of her name Stewart to the French version, which is Stuart. After
> returning to Scotland, she continued to spell her name Stuart and
> gradually most of her family members adopted her custom and spelled
> their names Stuart instead of Stewart.
>
> Thus, anybody in England or Scotland with the name Stuart instead of
> Stewart is likely to be a relative of Mary Queen of Scots.
>
> One point of particular interest to me is I have a relative in my
> family tree named Mary Stuart. She was born 1729 in Gabinheough,
> Tyrone, Ireland and died in Chester County, South Carolina. She was
> the mother of Margaret Coulter, the first wife of Andrew Graham, who
> was my great-great-great-grandfather. Andrew Graham had either two or
> three wives, nobody knows for sure, and all of them were named
> Margaret, so I cannot say for sure whether or not Mary Stuart was my
> great-great-great-great grandmother. In any case, Family Histories
> have always said that Mary Stuart was a descendant of King James of
> Scotland by his second wife, a commoner.
>
> By "a commoner", what they really mean is that she was a bastard, but
> this does not bother me, as everybody has always thought that about me
> anyway.
>
john mchale
> old?
>
> Sam Sloan
Remember Romeo and Juliet, half the age and though fiction, representatives
of the heart.
The man was shattered. One's feelings are excruciatingly raw in those tender
years.
JKent...@aol.com
j...@watson.ibm.com writes:
> >Just wondering: How does one die of grief when he is only 30 years
> >old?
>
>
Perhaps the same way my neighbor's son died recently at the grand old age of
27...he hung himself...the same way his mother died when she was about his
age.
Jno
Roz Griston
Jno
it may not be something as sinister as suicide. depression can be very
dibiliatating causing one to give up the will to live. have you ever
heard the term: died of a broken heart.
check out: http://www.sads.org this is an extremely rare heart defect.
an emotional upset/stress can kill. and this thing is genetic.
roz
Graeme Wall
The...@aol.com wrote:
[snip]
>
> I am currently trying to trace my descent from an early Eel of Moray.
>
Groan! I`ll skate round that one.
D. Spencer Hines
James V married first a Royal French Princess and after her death he
married Marie de Guise, daughter of a Lorraine Duc de Guise, nothing
common about that one.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----------------------
Quite Right.
Her father was Claude de Lorraine [1496-1550], duc de Guise.
Commoner?
Hell No!
It is *Sloan* who is the "commoner" here ---- common, charlatan,
ignorant, fraudulent ragamuffin.
How Sweet It Is!
Deus Vult.
"You're the top! - You're a Waldorf salad. - You're the top! - You're a
Berlin ballad. You're a baby grand of a lady and a gent, You're an old
Dutch master, You're Mrs. Astor, You're Pepsodent. You're romance,
You're the steppes of Russia, You're the pants on a Roxy usher. I'm a
lazy lout that's just about to stop, But if, baby, I'm the bottom -
You're the top!" - [Cole Porter, Yale '13 - 1934. The sixth sentence
supra was reportedly Cole's favourite in the entire song. ---- DSH]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Leo van de Pas" <leov...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:00bc01c15ee2$35219e20$d3703bcb@leo...
Colin Rosenthal
It's a misprint. He actually died as a result of _Crief_ .
--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo
Gary Holtzman
Yes, I sometimes wonder whether this "died of grief" diagnosis which appears in
medieval and early modern chronicles is a euphemism (or, perhaps, an insightful
description) for suicide. Other times I wonder whether the medievals simply
recognized a very real cause of death that modern medicine does not.
--
Gary Holtzman
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Paul Moynagh
ghol...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> Yes, I sometimes wonder whether this "died of grief" diagnosis which
> appears
> in
> medieval and early modern chronicles is a euphemism (or, perhaps, an
> insightful
Until the 19C and the birth of modern scientific medicine premised largely
on autopsy evidence, the cause of death was often attributed to events or
circumstances just before the event. While this might be medically
recognisable to us now (if there was some obvious circumstance such as a
fever, an epidemic, an externally recognisable cancer, wounds, a fall etc),
they more often than not had no way of knowing, especially for sudden
unexpected deaths in apparently healthy people. If grieving just before
death, it was 'died of grief'. Dying of fright, of thunder (not struck by
lightning), or even 'of a cat', were other not uncommon attributions. Death
due to various kinds of magic, spells and curses have more primitive
origins, and 'witches' have been persecuted as the presumed perpetrators
until quite recently. If there was no obvious such circumstance, dying from
a 'Visitation from God' considered as due to past, even if unknown, sins,
was a frequent cop out. Other fanciful causes include being 'struck' by the
moon or by a planet.
While 'dying of grief' *could* be suicide, without some other evidence I do
not think one can assume it was. I accept that with suicide considered a sin
and a crime that there was clearly some incentive for the kindly disposed to
try and cover it up. But it would be counterproductive to use any commonly
accepted euphemism for this; whatever the substitute term, it would have to
fit the circumstances to be plausible given the beliefs of the time.
> . . . Other times I wonder whether the medievals
> simply
> recognized a very real cause of death that modern medicine does not.
You make a good point - modern scientific medicine does not formally
recognise such a cause as some objective pathology is nearly always found to
explain it. But there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence to suggest
that profound emotional events can precipitate fatal pathologies, but, while
there are theories, no one has yet proved a mechanism. The 'will to live', a
concept as yet not measurable by science, appears to many doctors to be a
powerful factor in sustaining the 'vital force', whatever that is. This can
work both ways, seeming to explain why some with apparently overwhelming
medical reasons to die survive, and why others who medically ought to remain
alive do not. Should an explanation be forthcoming, then 'dying of grief'
might well make a come back on modern death certificates.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Moynagh
pmoy...@argonet.co.uk