PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: WAS Trolling for the troll
Bill Arnold
which has nothing to do with medieval genealogy. If you'd bothered to go
through the archives you'd have found that DSH is far from anonymous - full
naval career, famous father etc. With DSH having such a public online
identity your theory about trolls is blown out of the water. The board
knows much more about him than it does about it's [SIC] other troll - YOU.
BA: O really: I lost track. No, sorry to disappoint, but I am not a troll, David.
As a member of gen-medieval [ which admittedly has no moderator ]
I tried to keep it on track of genealogy but find this forum allows too many
off-topic subjects to be discussed to honor that rule anymore than you
are re-posting to me, agreed? Why, God forbid, would I want to search
the archives for DSH? If he has posted his past, so be it, and I respect
you for correcting my misunderstanding. By the way, do you believe
DSH has a Cherokee lineage? Is it not proper for a gen-man who makes
that allegation to post his sources, his proof? Is that not the substance
of medieval genealogy: documentation, sources, proof? It seems a truly
double-standard is afoot: when you all demand of Bill Arnold that he
disprove a theory of fraud, provide documentation, sources, proof,
and then you all allow your resident troll free access to post such a
Gramma's *fiction* without demanding the same of him, agreed?
I see posts off-topic more than on-topic. Is that my fault, only being
here since early September, 2007? What, pray tell, does *modern* British food
have to do with *medieval* genealogy? Well, at any rate, David, I shall
desist at attempting to rid us of someone named DSH who you and others
are happy is here at gen-medieval. You are welcome to him: I shall ponder
my Peck Pedigree and prepare a post for gen-medieval which is ON TOPIC:
PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Look for it in upcoming days!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
t...@clearwire.net
> As a member of gen-medieval [ which admittedly has no moderator ]
Nor does it have 'members', per se.
> I tried to keep it on track of genealogy but find this forum allows too many
> off-topic subjects
See above where you admit that there is nothing that can be done to
stop them.
> Why, God forbid, would I want to search
> the archives for DSH?
So you know what you are talking about? So you don't reinvent the
wheel? So you don't think that in the more than a decade that he has
inflicted himself on USENET, only you have insight into his
personality? So that you see that your 'novel' approach to dealing
with him has been tried, as has everything else imaginable?
If you think that after a decade of his misbehavior, you are going to
drive him into propriety simply by demanding, DEMANDING that he answer
your question, you are sadly mistaken. You are just adding to the
noise.
> I see posts off-topic more than on-topic. Is that my fault, only being
> here since early September, 2007?
Well, let's see. Since you have been here, you have adamantly told one
of the listowners that he didn't understand the organization of the
list, you have made up names for various long-time participants, you
have tried to teach us all how medieval genealogy is appropriately
done, you have introduced my supposed sexuality into the discussion.
You have alternately condemned and lionized the same person, depending
on whether you viewed him as agreeing with you or disagreeing, you
have tried to redefine everything from fact to the very nature of the
group, you have attacked the credentials of several others while
incessantly parading out yours. . . . You have been a bull in a china
shop since you arrived. Whose fault is that?
taf
D. Spencer Hines
This should be Great Fun.
Of course, he's trolling to be spoon-fed and shown "the CORRECT descent from
Charlemagne to Arnold" ---- by nabobs here.
He's ignored everything taf, Nat, Don, Renia and I have told him -- and
continues to plow the furrow from the wrong end.
A nice genealogical image even if I do say so myself.
Modesty prevents me from being more specific.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Bill Arnold" <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.80.119634060...@rootsweb.com...
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/29/2007 10:15:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pan...@excelsior.com writes:
Of course, he's trolling to be spoon-fed and shown "the CORRECT descent from
Charlemagne to Arnold" ---- by nabobs here.
---------------------
Then do it ;)
Will "Stir the pot, sit and watch" Johnson
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Douglas Richardson
On Nov 29, 5:49 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is it not proper for a gen-man who makes that allegation to post his sources, his proof? Is that not the substance
> of medieval genealogy: documentation, sources, proof?
You're 1,000% correct, Bill. That's why I try to quote contemporary
documentation and post my source(s) after each statement I make, if at
all possible. And, I encourage everyone else to do the same. Yes,
I'm aware that it's a high standard. But if we don't quote
contemporary records and don't supply our sources, we're just copying
someone else's work or expressing our own opinions. Some of that is
just fine, by the way (Leo's database is mostly copy work, for
example, but I find it very useful at times), but the real substance
is as you say "sources, proof."
< I shall ponder my Peck Pedigree and prepare a post for gen-medieval
which is ON TOPIC:
I'd like to hear more about your "Peck pedigree." And, by all means,
please post your source(s). Your detractors will have to post their
source(s) as well, otherwise they're just expressing their opinions.
Opinions are nice, but documentation is the proof of the pudding. The
floor is all your's.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
> Doug, I *trust* Bill Arnold's ridiculous Peck pedigree won't make an
> appearance in your next book (when will that be out, by the way?).
> Although perhaps some "miraculous new evidence" will emerge in the
> meantime ... :-)
You're expressing your opinion, John. I want to see evidence, not
your opinion. If Mr. Arnold has evidence, well and good. That will
become manifest rather quickly. If you have counter evidence, then
after Mr. Arnold has posted his evidence, be sure to provide it along
with your source(s).
So far my impression that most of the people who have posted on this
topic are guilty of posturing. They actually have no counter
evidence. If you have that counter evidence, I definitely want to see
it.
For now, the floor is Mr. Arnold's. Now Mr. Arnold, what have you
got? Please be concise, detailed, and be sure to provide your
sources.
Bill Arnold
MIDDLETONS AND PLUMPTONS DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE:
Introduction to Medieval Scholars:
The Peck Pedigree in the British Library has a provenance
of 17thC/18thC, according to one scholar: "probably acquired
around 1790 to 1810," and rests upon both Tonge's Visitation
and *The Visitation of Yorkshire in the years 1563 and 1564*
made by William Flower, Esquire, Norroy King of Arms, edited by
Charles Best Norcliffe, M.A., of Langton, London, 1881. There
is no Peck Pedigree in Dugdale's Visitations of Yorke,
1665-1686, nor Flower's Visitations of the North, 1575.
Nat Taylor posted to gen-medieval about its *provenance.*
See: Nat Taylor, *Subject: Peck Pedigree: new information on
BL Add MS 5524,* Tue, 30 Oct 2007]. Key passages which relate
to the *provenance* are quoted below. Medieval scholars, other
than Nat Taylor, ought to be able to accomplish the goal set out
in gentleman and scholar Taylor's remarks quoted herein.
Descendant Ira B. Peck in *A Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck,* Mudge, Boston, 1868, and in a subsequent 1870 note
to the New England Historical Genealogical Register, stated very clearly
that Nicholas, the brother of Joseph and the Rev. Robert, expended
considerable time and money to have the updated pedigree charted
which included not only the Yorkshire Pecks but the Suffolk Pecks,
beginning with his grandfather, Robert Peck, the Elder, testator of 1556,
son of John Peck of Wakefield, Yorkshire, according to the Peck Pedigree
in the British Library. After both his parents' death, Nicholas Peck in
England inherited the family estate, lands, buildings, and papers. His
brothers, Joseph and the Rev. Robert, were emigrants to America, 1638.
In accordance with this knowledge, it behooves a Medieval Scholar to
obtain access to the same Peck pedigree in the British Library to view its
contents and pass judgment upon the soundness of this descent from
Charlemagne.
The following is an excerpt from Nat Taylor's post, cited above:
"I consulted printed sources on BL manuscripts...The BL divides all its
manuscripts into named collections (Cotton, Harley, etc.)--which all came
in together as large sets, and all others are simply 'Additional', numbered
consecutively from the early 1700s to the present...However, there is a
separate sort of work in print, uniquely for the period 1783 to 1835: a
subject index, published in 1849, listing individual items found in those
manuscripts, often down to the page level. This work is: _Index to the
Additional Manuscripts with those of the Egerton Collection preserved in
the British Museum and acquired in the years 1783-1835_ (London:
Trustees of the British Museum, 1849)...Under the heading "Peck, family of"
it lists 'Pedigree: [Add. MS] 5524, ff. 152, 152b, 153, 153b, and 154." and
"Arms: [Add. MS] 5524, folio 221'...While it is not a catalogue as such, and
so does not contain a volume-level description or provenance, the numbering
suggests that Add. MS 5524 was probably acquired around 1790 to 1810,
and that the Peck pedigree was in it before 1849. Browsing the index also
gives clues about the nature of the MS. On the same page of the index there
are references to -- Peche, family of (co. Suff.) Philipott, family of...This
suggests that the MS volume as a whole is an authentic antiquarian MS of at
least the 18th century--perhaps specializing in Suffolk pedigrees--acquired
by the BL at the end of the 18th century...If the document really comes from
the pen of Philpott or one of his confreres, it most likely was done for Nicholas
Peck, brother of the emigrant. He is said to have married an heraldic heiress;
his son is the only person of the next generation noted, and there is a
six-quarter achievement (incorrectly so, as the fourth quarter, the bend with
three mullets for Hatham of Scarborough, is not in the alleged direct line above
the Suffolk Pecks) representing the young William. Nicholas is the 'person who
matters' in the last recorded generation, who is invariably the person for whom
the pedigree was originally compiled...I am inclined to absolve Somerby of the
charge of physical forgery of this leaf...If no interpolation or alteration is obvious,
this is most likely to be an authentic 17th-century document or an 18th-century
copy of a 17th-century document....Someone suggested simply asking the College
of Arms for copies of whatever they may have on this; it is the obvious next step
after looking at this BL manuscript. Unfortunately the heralds' official assistance
may be rather costly, even for a memorandum simply listing the manuscripts they
hold which treat the Wakefield and (if any) Beccles Pecks. With a photo of the BL
manuscript, they might be in a position to authenticate or reject the signature of,
say, Philpot."
Awaiting resolution of this matter, from a gentleman and Medieval Scholar,
I remain your humble descendant of American gateway ancestor Joseph Peck and
his grandfather, Robert Peck, the Elder, testator of 1556, Beccles, Suffolk, England,
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
Bill Arnold
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Bill Arnold
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
t...@clearwire.net
On Nov 29, 12:50 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> PEDIGREE OF PECK IN THE BRITISH LIBRARY SHOWS THROUGH
> MIDDLETONS AND PLUMPTONS DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE:
>
> Introduction to Medieval Scholars:
> The Peck Pedigree in the British Library has a provenance
> of 17thC/18thC, according to one scholar: "probably acquired
> around 1790 to 1810," and rests upon both Tonge's Visitation
> and *The Visitation of Yorkshire in the years 1563 and 1564*
> made by William Flower, Esquire, Norroy King of Arms, edited by
> Charles Best Norcliffe, M.A., of Langton, London, 1881.
1) do we know it rests upon these, and not a shared source yet to be
identified?
2) it had better not rest on an edition published in 1881.
> Medieval scholars, other
> than Nat Taylor, ought to be able to accomplish the goal set out
> in gentleman and scholar Taylor's remarks quoted herein.
1) For a reasonably small fee there are any number of researchers who
could consult it for you, or you could have the BL do it.
2) remember when you were calling Nat less favorable things, not that
long ago?
> Descendant Ira B. Peck in *A Genealogical History of the Descendants
> of Joseph Peck,* Mudge, Boston, 1868, and in a subsequent 1870 note
> to the New England Historical Genealogical Register, stated very clearly
> that Nicholas, the brother of Joseph and the Rev. Robert, expended
> considerable time and money to have the updated pedigree charted
No, he did not state it very clearly - he included a weasel-word that
you are leaving out, and that makes it clear he was speculating.
> In accordance with this knowledge, it behooves a Medieval Scholar to
> obtain access to the same Peck pedigree in the British Library to view its
> contents and pass judgment upon the soundness of this descent from
> Charlemagne.
So hire one.
taf
Bill Arnold
by the way?). Although perhaps some "miraculous new evidence" will
emerge in the meantime ... :-)
Douglas Richardson: You're expressing your opinion, John. I want to
see evidence, not your opinion. If Mr. Arnold has evidence, well and
good. That will become manifest rather quickly. If you have counter
evidence, then after Mr. Arnold has posted his evidence, be sure to
provide it along with your source(s). So far my impression that most
of the people who have posted on this topic are guilty of posturing.
They actually have no counter evidence. If you have that counter
evidence, I definitely want to see it. For now, the floor is Mr. Arnold's.
Now Mr. Arnold, what have you got? Please be concise, detailed, and
be sure to provide your sources.
Bill Arnold: Yesterday I posted that there is ample evidence of the Peck
pedigree descent from Charlemagne, and it exists in the Brit Lib in five
plates.
From: Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com>
Subject: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:33:28 -0800 (PST)
PEDIGREE OF PECK IN THE BRITISH LIBRARY SHOWS THROUGH
MIDDLETONS AND PLUMPTONS DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE:
Those who have not *viewed* those plates even in facsimile and challenge
it are merely voicing personal opinions. I have read allegations of fraud,
beginning in the 1930s but none have demonstrated evidence. Supposition
of fraud by Somerby because of his reputation has been set aside by
the details of the *provenance* of the plates by Nat Taylor's research and
his post cited in my post of yesterday. The facsimiles published in the New
England Historical Genealogical Register of 1936 clearly demonstrate
the case of the Peck Pedigree descent through Middleton and Plumpton
from Charlemagne. Any gentleman scholar would at least view facsimiles
which are readily available in the New England Historical Genealogical
Register, 1936. Then after such a viewing, a gentleman scholar with
knowledge of the handwriting and content of documents of that period
could dispel further doubts and then the door might be shut on the
fraud allegation aspect of this case. At this juncture in the discussion,
the door is wide open to scholarly discussion and viewing of the evidence
I presented of the Peck Pedigree and the provenance proved by the work
of Nat Taylor. The probability that the Peck Pedigree descent from
Charlemagne exists as a fact of English record dating from a document
reportedly created in the 17thC and received shortly thereafter in the
Brit Lib archives is on the table. As the doubters have been challenged
by gentleman and scholar Douglas Richardson, simply stating that those
who challenge need to marshall their evidence, it behooves naysayers to
prove their counter challenge. Scholarship needs evidence, and so far those
who would claim fraud of the Peck Pedigree in the Brit Lib have not offered
it in light of the provenance issue clarity offered by our other resident
gentleman scholar Nat Taylor. Credible challenges to that document should
only be made by reputable gentlemen scholars who have viewed either
facsimiles or had access on site to the original in the Brit Lib. Only a scholar
versed in medieval documents, who can read the Latin and/or old English and
are familiar with the tendencies of writing of that period can settle this issue.
That is the essence of scholarship: rendering evidence yea or nay. To offer
an opinion yea or nay without evidence is hollow and wanting on such a
weighty question. Facsimiles of the plates in Brit Lib appeared in 1936
New England Historical Genealogical Register and are available in most major
university libraries worldwide, from Salt Lake City, Utah, to Harvard and
the Boston Public Library across the Charles river, to London and Paris, et al..
Scholars have access to these facsimiles merely by stepping through the
door of their local library. The NEHG Register is also on CD-ROM and it
too is available at local history centers of LDS all across America. English
based scholars know more about their available resources than I. Others
can obtain interlibrary loan copies of the 1936 Register. The plates are
tipped in just before the article in the hardbound edition I possess, and
are in the front of the CD-ROM version of that year. In the event all of
these possible sources prove lacking, if any gentleman scholar emails me
off-list with a request, I will email an attachment back with these plates
viewable for their study of the evidence I have presented yesterday. So
that there is no misunderstanding, please do not email such requests
to gen-medieval and cloud this Peck Descent From Charlemagne with
any more extraneous sidebars, and only gentleman or gentlewoman
scholars familiar with documents of this time period should apply by
sending me an off-list email. I have no desire to debate this question
off-list and make this offer in the best interests of scholarship and
resolution of this question of a possible Peck Descent From Charlemagne
once and for all while interested minds are attentive.
t...@clearwire.net
>
> Douglas Richardson: You're expressing your opinion, John. I want to
> see evidence, not your opinion.
Oh, we don't like opinions? well, then, how about providing evidence
that the vernacular form is the correct one - oops, that is just your
opinion.
> If Mr. Arnold has evidence, well and
> good. That will become manifest rather quickly. If you have counter
> evidence, then after Mr. Arnold has posted his evidence, be sure to
> provide it along with your source(s). So far my impression that most
> of the people who have posted on this topic are guilty of posturing.
> They actually have no counter evidence.
Which only proves you are completely unfamiliar with the case, and
hence are, that's right, guilty of posturing.
> Bill Arnold: Yesterday I posted that there is ample evidence of the Peck
> pedigree descent from Charlemagne, and it exists in the Brit Lib in five
> plates.
No, it does not. Please familiarize yourself with your own source.
> Those who have not *viewed* those plates even in facsimile and challenge
> it are merely voicing personal opinions.
The 'plates' are the facsimile.
> I have read allegations of fraud,
> beginning in the 1930s but none have demonstrated evidence.
Untrue. Here is your first chance - prove that none of the critiques
of the pedigree have provided evidence.
> The facsimiles published in the New
> England Historical Genealogical Register of 1936 clearly demonstrate
> the case of the Peck Pedigree descent through Middleton and Plumpton
> from Charlemagne.
They clearly demonstrate that sometime before about the end of the
19th century, someone drafted a pedigree which reports this to have
been the case - they do not actually demonstrate that the
relationships presented were authentic.
> Then after such a viewing, a gentleman scholar with
> knowledge of the handwriting and content of documents of that period
> could dispel further doubts and then the door might be shut on the
> fraud allegation aspect of this case.
Well, the script looks later than early-17th century to me too (same
as Nat suggested).
> The probability that the Peck Pedigree descent from
> Charlemagne exists as a fact of English record dating from a document
> reportedly created in the 17thC and received shortly thereafter in the
> Brit Lib archives is on the table.
It was received 200 years after, which is less time than it had been
in the British Library when it was communicated to Peck. That is not
'shortly thereafter'. Beyond that, the sentence is so disjointed it
is hard to tell what you think is a "fact of English record" (which is
another pseudo-legalistic but otherwise meaningless turn of phrase).
Are you suggesting that the pedigree exists? Well, yes, it exists
there in the British Library. If, on the other hand, you are
suggesting the the descent itself is a "fact of English record" that
is untrue, unless you are using 'fact of English record' to mean
'anything a herald wrote on paper'.
> As the doubters have been challenged
> by gentleman and scholar Douglas Richardson, simply stating that those
> who challenge need to marshall their evidence, it behooves naysayers to
> prove their counter challenge.
Given that the 'gentleman scholar' couldn't be troubled to familiarize
himself with the question before pontificating, what makes you think
anyone is going to let him frame the discussion.
> Credible challenges to that document should
> only be made by reputable gentlemen scholars who have viewed either
> facsimiles or had access on site to the original in the Brit Lib.
What rubbish. A credible challenge can be made by anyone who can
marshal an appropriate argument.
> Only a scholar
> versed in medieval documents, who can read the Latin and/or old English and
> are familiar with the tendencies of writing of that period can settle this issue.
Not even them, as you have ignored the opinion of one such scholar
already.
> That is the essence of scholarship: rendering evidence yea or nay. To offer
> an opinion yea or nay without evidence is hollow and wanting on such a
> weighty question.
The question is hardly weighty.
taf
Douglas Richardson
I'd be happy to look at the plates of the Peck Pedigree for you. I'll
contact you shortly by private e-mail. After viewing the plates, I'll
give you my opinion of them here on the newsgroup.
If I understand you correctly, these plates are "facsimiles" of the
original pedigree in the British Library, which plates were published
in 1936 as part of an article on the Peck family in the New England
Register. Is that correct?
I believe a typewritten transcript of this same pedigree was also
published in an article on the Peck family sometime in the past by the
Rhode Island Historical Society. Is that correct? Do you have a
citation for that article by any chance?
Nathaniel Taylor
> I'd be happy to look at the plates of the Peck Pedigree for you. After
> viewing the plates, I'll give you my opinion of them here on the
> newsgroup.
[Note use of singular here.]
> If I understand you correctly, these plates are "facsimiles" of the
> original pedigree in the British Library, which plates were published
> in 1936 as part of an article on the Peck family in the New England
> Register. Is that correct?
>
> I believe a typewritten transcript of this same pedigree was also
> published in an article on the Peck family sometime in the past by the
> Rhode Island Historical Society. Is that correct? Do you have a
> citation for that article by any chance?
Dear Douglas ~
If you're interested in reading about the Peck pedigree, you should
start with:
S[hirley] Allyn Peck: "The English Ancestry of Joseph Peck, of Hingham,
Mass., in 1638," _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_ 89
(1935):327-39; 90 (1936):58-67, 194-198, 263-68, 371-73 [and plates
I-IVa]; 91 (1937):7-15, 282-86, 355-63; 92 (1938):71-73; 93 (1939),
176-78, 359-61; 94 (1940):71-73.
Some time ago I placed this serialized article online as a pdf file at:
http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf
This includes the five pages of photographic facsimiles of the Peck
pedigree found in BL Add. MS 5524. But for further convenience I also
posted just the facsimile, in a much smaller pdf file, at:
http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_pedigree_1620.pdf
Actually the S. Allyn Peck article does not include an exact transcript
of the material in the pedigree, but it usually easy enough to make out
even in the low-resolution scan.
If you want to get up to speed by reading past messages on this topic,
focusing on my posts will kill two birds with one stone for you. In
addition to learning about this case, you'll be able to indulge your
obsession with combing my posts for things to contradict.
Enjoy!
Very best, always,
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Douglas Richardson
< In addition to learning about this case, you'll be able to indulge
your
< obsession with combing my posts for things to contradict.
<
< Very best, always,
<
< Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
I look for the good in people, and I usually find it.
DR
Renia
Dead people?
Douglas Richardson
I was speaking of my fellow posters who are alive and kicking.
DR
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fipn8n$nea$2...@mouse.otenet.gr...
Renia
>
> If you're interested in reading about the Peck pedigree, you should
> start with:
>
> S[hirley] Allyn Peck: "The English Ancestry of Joseph Peck, of Hingham,
> Mass., in 1638," _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_ 89
> (1935):327-39; 90 (1936):58-67, 194-198, 263-68, 371-73 [and plates
> I-IVa]; 91 (1937):7-15, 282-86, 355-63; 92 (1938):71-73; 93 (1939),
> 176-78, 359-61; 94 (1940):71-73.
>
> Some time ago I placed this serialized article online as a pdf file at:
>
> http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf
I have to ask whether Bill Arnold has actually read this article. It's
very illuminating.
Bill Arnold
BA: Thank you for the offer to *view* the plates and give your gentleman
scholar judgment of their authenticity as to the dating of the provenance
stated in gentleman scholar Nat Taylor's post cited previously. The plates
referred to are, indeed, facsimiles of the original pedigree in the British
Library and published in the 1936 Register. As to the typescript, I know
that such exists in the front of Ira B. Peck's 1868 *Genealogy of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck* and it substantially agrees with the British Library pedigree,
according to the 1936 Register authors. One of those authors was
Stanhope Peck of the Rhode Island Pecks and a number of excerpts of his
articles on the Pecks appears online at the Rhode Island Historical page.
I have not seen the pedigree there. In the 1868 typescript by Ira B. Peck
he does state the last two generations were added subsequent to the
British Library pedigree, inasmuch as the pedigree in BL dates from about
1620-1631. I did note a date on Plate IVa of 1631 but I am sure you can
read the handwritten manuscript pedigree of that time period better than I.
As to the accuracy of the pedigree in the BL, that is another matter. I have
stated all along it is alleged to have been done in the 17thC although Nat
Taylor found a later provenance. I am sure medieval scholars will have to
go over it *with a fine tooth comb* and compare it against other known
pedigrees, i.e. Visitations, wills, chancery records, church records, as I
do know of several church windows referring to named individuals in the
key Suffolk-to-Yorkshire segment. Certainly yourself, and someone of
the scholarly talents of John Ravilious who posts often in Latin could read
original documents and verify the veracity of the pedigree in the BL and
in the front of Ira B. Peck's book. Inasmuch as Ira B. Peck depended upon
the BL Peck Pedigree, and whatever other documents he had at his disposal,
I will be curious to read your findings for the record in gen-medieval.
Bill Arnold
> If you're interested in reading about the Peck pedigree, you should
> start with:
> S[hirley] Allyn Peck: "The English Ancestry of Joseph Peck, of Hingham,
> Mass., in 1638," _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_ 89
> (1935):327-39; 90 (1936):58-67, 194-198, 263-68, 371-73 [and plates
> I-IVa]; 91 (1937):7-15, 282-86, 355-63; 92 (1938):71-73; 93 (1939),
> 176-78, 359-61; 94 (1940):71-73.
> Some time ago I placed this serialized article online as a pdf file at:
> http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf
Renia: I have to ask whether Bill Arnold has actually read this article. It's
very illuminating.
BA: I am happy to respond. When I first posted to gen-medieval in Sep, 07,
I began with extensive references to the serialized article of the 1930 and
was the first person, as far as I know, on gen-medieval to bring this matter
to the attention of this forum. I back-tracked into the Peck pedigree through
the Plumpton/Middleton segments, which were verified by gentleman scholar
John Higgins. There was no point in my raising the issue of the Pecks/Middletons
or Pecks/Plumptons if the Middletons or Plumptons were not lineages to royalty,
inasmuch as I noted in my posts on several occasions that I had discussed this
matter with Gary Boyd Roberts and he assured me that the lineage from William
I *The Lion* King of Scots descent through Ross/Plumpton was sound but he
stopped short of its alleged link to Peck as noted on LDS and Rootsweb online.
Thus, my sojourn here began with the above, and extensively cited S. Allyn Peck
and Stanhope Peck's serialized articles in the New England Historical Genealogical
Register. I did not then nor do I now agree with all their opinions about thie
Peck pedigree. They certainly did not go into collateral lines of the Plumptons
and Middletons but stayed primarily with the Pecks. In a few footnotes which
I noted they discussed Alice Middleton who married Richard Peck, parents of
John Peck, alleged father of Robert Peck, the Elder, thence called "of Beccles."
I quoted their wills, court records, IPMs, church records, church windows, et al.,
so that none should doubt that I am very very familiar with the Register works,
even citing 1870 articles about Ira B. Peck's genealogy book and his subsequent
response in Notes & Queries. Again: I maintain as we all know that opinions are
like noses, everybody's got one: and I agreed in some instances and disagreed
in others. I believe I have been justified, inasmuch as the maligning of the BL
pedigree as a forgery by Somerby has been put aside and dispelled by the work
of Nat Taylor re: the provenance issue. I had the distinct impression and was
justified in it that many at gen-medieval had not a clue of its relevance to the
scholarship of the question of the veracity of the BL Peck Pedigree.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
t...@clearwire.net
> I believe I have been justified, inasmuch as the maligning of the BL
> pedigree as a forgery by Somerby has been put aside and dispelled by the work
> of Nat Taylor re: the provenance issue.
. . . conveniently ignoring the other possible levels of fraud which
Nat mentioned.
As much as you harp on it, if, for the sake of argument, the pedigree
does turn out to have been drafted in 1605, that doesn't prove that
its contents are authentic. Likewise, if it turns out to be
demonstrably written in say, 1750, that doesn't mean the data it
presents is false. That Somerby had a role in transmission was not
the only reason for doubting it, it was just one more reason. You
keep harping on Somerby not forging it, but "not forged by Somerby"
does not immediately imply authenticity, only that *this particular*
forger wasn't involved. Useful information, but a baby step.
> I had the distinct impression and was
> justified in it that many at gen-medieval had not a clue of its relevance to the
> scholarship of the question of the veracity of the BL Peck Pedigree.
You just can't get through an entire post without going off the rails,
can you?
For all the emphasis you put on this heraldic pedigree, you have yet
to explain why John of Wakefield would have left one son out of his
own visitation pedigree. Likewise you have not addressed the
chronological difficulties of making Robert son of John. If his age
in a later document is accurately recorded, that makes him older than
John's oldest recorded son, Richard. Robert would thus have been the
heir of his father and not a yeoman off in search of a landed wife.
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
<639016bc-ec60-4584...@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> On Nov 30, 7:52 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe I have been justified, inasmuch as the maligning of the BL
> > pedigree as a forgery by Somerby has been put aside and dispelled by the
> > work
> > of Nat Taylor re: the provenance issue.
>
> . . . conveniently ignoring the other possible levels of fraud which
> Nat mentioned.
>
> As much as you harp on it, if, for the sake of argument, the pedigree
> does turn out to have been drafted in 1605, that doesn't prove that
> its contents are authentic. Likewise, if it turns out to be
> demonstrably written in say, 1750, that doesn't mean the data it
> presents is false. That Somerby had a role in transmission was not
> the only reason for doubting it, it was just one more reason. You
> keep harping on Somerby not forging it, but "not forged by Somerby"
> does not immediately imply authenticity, only that *this particular*
> forger wasn't involved. Useful information, but a baby step.
While we're on this, I -- and, of course, some of the lurkers who
support me in e-mail [refrain] -- am not 100% satisfied that Somerby did
NOT interpolate page 5 of this pedigree (the Yorkshire - Suffolk link).
These questions (and many others), could, as I have said, be well
settled with perhaps two hours of a disinterested expert's time looking
at the original MS & finding aids in London. For the amount of time
we've spent on it here, we could have pooled resources and contacts and
resolved the thing...
And has anyone looked at Corder's _Dictionary of Suffolk Arms_ for Peck
of Beccles?
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
t...@clearwire.net
> And has anyone looked at Corder's _Dictionary of Suffolk Arms_ for Peck
> of Beccles?
I note that in the 1660s, William, son of Nicholas of Beccles, is
recorded as using the Peck Wakefield arms. (This was in one of the
NEHGR serial sections.) That, by the way, is what has more or less
convinced me that Somerby didn't interpolate the claim (as convinced
as one can be without looking at the original).
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
<135c2872-1d0a-4268...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
t...@clearwire.net wrote:
Ah; OK, I missed this.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Bill Arnold
to explain why John of Wakefield would have left one son out of his
own visitation pedigree. Likewise you have not addressed the
chronological difficulties of making Robert son of John. If his age
in a later document is accurately recorded, that makes him older than
John's oldest recorded son, Richard. Robert would thus have been the
heir of his father and not a yeoman off in search of a landed wife.
BA: Well, I can think of many, but...I will mention a few: maybe the son
were illegitimate? Maybe the son were *persona non grata*? Maybe the
son got some unfortunate lady pregnant and left the manor? As to ages:
I find few medieval records I have viewed, which is not many, but a fair
amount, wanting in specifics as to ages of the principals therein named.
And on the other hand: I see large leeway granted by many scholars
to make fit certain folk into pedigree/lineages. A better question might
be: what went through the minds of the heralds who drafted the Peck
Pedigree which granted Nicholas's William to bear heraldic arms of the
Wakefield Pecks? Perhaps Robert Peck, the Elder, was indeed a Peck
of Wakefield; he had to have come from somewhere, and did not spring
like Dionysus from the thigh of Zeus? So, instead of deconstructing the
Peck Pedigree, why not accept its blatant production of the College of
Arms heralds and make you best constructive judgment of *what in
blazes* caused it to be drafted in the early 1600s, and *who* was the
father of Robert Peck, the Elder, if *not* John? You understand: despite
the harping of others with their opinions to the contrary, I still have an
open mind about this conundrum of medieval scholarship.
Bill
*****
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
t...@clearwire.net
> TAF: For all the emphasis you put on this heraldic pedigree, you have yet
> to explain why John of Wakefield would have left one son out of his
> own visitation pedigree. Likewise you have not addressed the
> chronological difficulties of making Robert son of John. If his age
> in a later document is accurately recorded, that makes him older than
> John's oldest recorded son, Richard. Robert would thus have been the
> heir of his father and not a yeoman off in search of a landed wife.
>
> BA: Well, I can think of many, but...I will mention a few: maybe the son
> were illegitimate? Maybe the son were *persona non grata*? Maybe the
> son got some unfortunate lady pregnant and left the manor?
Any time you start having to come up with ad hoc explanations to avoid
the inconvenient data it doesn't look good. It also is not a sign of
an open mind.
> As to ages:
> I find few medieval records I have viewed, which is not many, but a fair
> amount, wanting in specifics as to ages of the principals therein named
> And on the other hand: I see large leeway granted by many scholars.
> to make fit certain folk into pedigree/lineages.
I am not sure I get what point you are trying to make, but a person
appointed administrator or executor is going to be an adult, full
stop.
> A better question might
> be: what went through the minds of the heralds who drafted the Peck
> Pedigree which granted Nicholas's William to bear heraldic arms of the
> Wakefield Pecks?
The pedigree didn't grant the arms, it just showed that William was
using them.
> Perhaps Robert Peck, the Elder, was indeed a Peck
> of Wakefield; he had to have come from somewhere, and did not spring
> like Dionysus from the thigh of Zeus?
The 'why not' proof?
> So, instead of deconstructing the
Where deconstructing equates with critical analysis, apparently.
> Peck Pedigree, why not accept its blatant production of the College of
> Arms heralds
How does a blatantly produced pedigree differ from one that has been
done subtly?
> and make you best constructive judgment of *what in
> blazes* caused it to be drafted in the early 1600s,
Money.
> and *who* was the
> father of Robert Peck, the Elder, if *not* John?
The 'who else' defense?
> You understand: despite
> the harping of others with their opinions to the contrary, I still have an
> open mind about this conundrum of medieval scholarship.
Your actions belie your self-characterization. The very way you
framed the question above - who else if not John - indicates this is
not the case.
taf
Renia
>
> BA: I am happy to respond. When I first posted to gen-medieval in Sep, 07,
> I began with extensive references to the serialized article of the 1930 and
> was the first person, as far as I know, on gen-medieval to bring this matter
> to the attention of this forum.
See the following for Peck references on this newsgroup: >
> Marlyn Lewis
> View profile
> More options Mar 22 1998, 10:00 am
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> From: mar...@earthworld.com (Marlyn Lewis)
> Date: 1998/03/22
> Subject: Reade.
> Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
>
> Have you seen anything on the Reade family of Beccles, Norfolk? According to the
> Visitations, this family of William Reade of Beccles (born, say 1475) had a
> daughter Elizabeth who married Augustine Steward, Esq. of Norwich (son of Geoffrey
> Steward and Cycelle Boyce, daughter of Augustine Boyce), and their daughter
> Elizabeth married Thomas Sotherton. The son of Thomas Sotherton and Elizabeth
> Steward was Augustine Sotherton of Hesleden, Norfolk who married 22 Sep 1572 to
> Anne Peche (Peck) and he died 26 Mar 1585. The line then descends to the their
> daughter Elizabeth Sotherton who married Thomas Warner, and their son Augustine
> Warner (1611-1674) died in Virginia.
>
> Can anyone help on the Steward, Sotherton, or Reade lines?
AND
> John Brandon
> View profile
> It's nice to see the constant additions and corrections to Sen. John Kerry's ancestry at ... http://members.aol.com/wreitwiesn/candidates2004/kerry.html Here are a few things that caught my eye. 1. The following persons could be added from John T. Fitch, _Puritan in the Wilderness: A Biography of the Reverend James Fitch, 1622-1702_: --968. Rev. James Fitch, b. Bocking, Essex, England 24 Dec. 1622 d. Lebanon, CT, 18 Nov. 1702 m. 2) 1664 --969. Priscilla Mason --970. Matthew Sherwood --971. Mary Fitch A later volume by John T. Fitch, _Descendants of the Rev. James Fitch_, would probably be a better source. 2. Mary Veren (#909), wife of Timothy Lindall (#908), was the daughter of Nathaniel Veren by his wife Mary ___, according to Sidney Perley, _A History of Salem Massachusetts_, 1:304. 3. Some of the ancestry of Elizabeth Tailer (#459), wife of John Nelson (#458) is shown at http://cybrary.uwinnipeg.ca/people/dobson/genealogy/famous/Dufferin.html
Portraits of John Nelson's father Robert Nelson (#916), and his wife Mary Temple, are reproduced in _Ancestral Records and Portraits_ (New York: Grafton Press, 1910), volume 2, opposite page 480. Robert and Mary Nelson are also the ancestors of Franklin Roosevelt. 4. I'm sure that the identity of #7591, Sarah ___, wife of Rev. Zechariah Symmes, has been discussed somewhere by John Brooks Threlfall. 5. Almost certainly, John Gardner (#936) and Hannah Gardner (#949) were members of the Gardner family of Salem, Mass. Probably Frank A. Gardner's _Gardner Genealogy_ (1907) would help in sorting them out. 6. An article in _The American Genealogist_ (1997) shows that the father of Hatevil Nutter (#3818) was an Edmund Nutter, not Anthony as given here. 7. The father of Ann Peck (#1921) was the Rev. Robert Peck, whose ancestry was treated extensively in a series of articles in the _Register_ in the late 1930s / early 1940s. The ancestry of her mother, Ann (Lawrence) Peck, was d
etailed in a couple of articles in _TAG_ ('40s or '50s). Rev. Robert Peck's ancestral lines of Babbs and Parkhurst were treated by John B. Threlfall in one of his books. 8. Robert O'Connor's 4/26/1999 posting to s.g.m. showed that the wife Amicia ___, of Edmund Lee of Pightlesthorne (#7340), was actually Amicia (or Alice) Ashfield.
> More options Apr 5 2004, 11:21 pm
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> From: starbuc...@hotmail.com (John Brandon)
> Date: 5 Apr 2004 14:21:44 -0700
> Local: Mon, Apr 5 2004 11:21 pm
> Subject: Additions to John Kerry's ancestor table
> Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
> It's nice to see the constant additions and corrections to Sen. John
> Kerry's ancestry at ...
>
> http://members.aol.com/wreitwiesn/candidates2004/kerry.html
>
> Here are a few things that caught my eye.
>
> 1. The following persons could be added from John T. Fitch, _Puritan
> in the Wilderness: A Biography of the Reverend James Fitch,
> 1622-1702_:
>
<snip>
>
> 7. The father of Ann Peck (#1921) was the Rev. Robert Peck, whose
> ancestry was treated extensively in a series of articles in the
> _Register_ in the late 1930s / early 1940s. The ancestry of her
> mother, Ann (Lawrence) Peck, was detailed in a couple of articles in
> _TAG_ ('40s or '50s). Rev. Robert Peck's ancestral lines of Babbs and
> Parkhurst were treated by John B. Threlfall in one of his books.
<snip>
AND
>
> John Brandon
> View profile
> (1 user) More options Oct 31 2006, 12:25 am
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> From: "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com>
> Date: 30 Oct 2006 14:25:50 -0800
> Local: Tues, Oct 31 2006 12:25 am
> Subject: Peck descent [?] of the Lakes of Normanton, Erby, and New England
> Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
> Back in July, I posted on the supposed New England line from the Lake
> family of Normanton, Yorks. (see attached copy of that post below).
> One of the generations was said to be "JOHN LAKE, of Normanton Manor,
> who m. Catherine, daughter of John Peake, or Pake, of Wakefield,
> Yorks." Surely this is the same "Kateren [Peck] wife to John Leake
> _Lake_ of Normanton" on p. 236 of _Visitations of Yorkshire in the
> Years 1563 and 1564: Made by William Flower ..._
>
> http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC61398955&id=pjMEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA2...
>
> *******
AND
> John Brandon
> View profile
> (2 users) More options Feb 13, 1:39 am
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> From: "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com>
> Date: 12 Feb 2007 15:39:40 -0800
> Local: Tues, Feb 13 2007 1:39 am
> Subject: Clue to origin of immigrant Jonathan Negus
> Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
> http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1422371018&id=R1wLAAAAIAAJ&pg=R...
>
> Would the Thomas Peck discussed be son of Rev. Robert Peck of Hingham,
> Norfolk, and Hingham, New England?
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/1/2007 9:10:20 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
t...@clearwire.net writes:
I am not sure I get what point you are trying to make, but a person
appointed administrator or executor is going to be an adult, full
stop.
------------------
I have to pause on this. There have been examples, even named here, where
someone is *named* an executor (in the testator's will, as opposed by a court
"de bonis non") and yet they were, at that time, apparently, under-age. I'm
not happy with that, but it seems to have occurred. We even speculated here
that perhaps a testator might do this *in order* to delay execution, but I'm
not sure.
I would have to agree on the administrator/trix however, since this are
appointed by a court of competence and so would have to be in their majority at
that time.
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Douglas Richardson
<
< I am not sure I get what point you are trying to make, but a person
< appointed administrator or executor is going to be an adult, full
< stop.
You're wrong, again, Todd. Whilte it is certainly rare, a minor can
be appointed executor or administrator of an estate, much as in
medieval times a minor husband can be granted his wife's lands, even
though his own lands are still in the hands of a guardian.
I think you're judging medieval times by modern standards. This is
dangerous and ill advised, Todd.
DR
t...@clearwire.net
> You're wrong, again, Todd. Whilte it is certainly rare, a minor can
> be appointed executor or administrator of an estate, much as in
> medieval times a minor husband can be granted his wife's lands, even
> though his own lands are still in the hands of a guardian.
OK, Mr. 'cite your evidence' - here is your chance. Give me a
specific example of someone in th mid-16th century who acted as
administrator of an estate while a minor.
> I think you're judging medieval times by modern standards. This is
> dangerous and ill advised, Todd.
I think you're posturing and pontificating, as usual. Don't letting
the fawning admiration of your groupie go to your head.
taf
Douglas Richardson
I've had a chance to examine the five plates which you sent me which
contain the pedigree of the Peck family. According to what you have
told me, these plates are reproductions of an original 17th Century
pedigree which is found in the British Library. The plates themselves
are taken from an article on the Peck family which was published in
the New England Register.
As far as I can tell, the pedigree is genuine and authentic. I have
no reason to think the pedigree has been tampered with or altered in
any way. The handwriting is consistent throughout the pedigree.
As best I can tell without spending a great deal of time on it, the
handwriting appears to be about 1631-1650. I make that assessment on
three factors. First, in the time of the Great Migration to the New
World, people were in the process of dropping the final "e" off of
many names. In the Peck pedigree, the name Peck is spelled Pecke with
the final "e" throughout, except for twice on the last page (Plate
IVa) where it is spelled Peck. These two references are to later
members of the Peck family of Beccles. Since we have Peck twice
without a final "e," I would date the pedigree as being c. 1630 or
later. Second, I find on Plate III a capital C which is typical of
capital C's written in 1650. For an example of such a capital C dated
1650, I refer newsgroup members to the weblink below. Click on
Report on Cromwell's Christmas ban 1650.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/palaeography/further_practice.htm
We can be reasonably sure that the pedigree dates from after 1631, as
I note there is a stray reference on Plate IVa to that date. The
handwriting of this stray entry seems to be the same as that of the
Peck pedigree.
Given these factors, I doubt the pedigree is earlier than 1630 because
of the capital C. Thus, the date 1631-1650.
Now onto the real crux of the matter. The pedigree alleges that the
grandfather of the immigrant Peck brothers was Robert Pecke (died
1556), of Beccles, Suffolk, which can be substantiated from other
sources. Robert Pecke of Beccles is placed in the pedigree as a son
of John Pecke, of Wakefield, Yorkshire, by his wife, ____, daughter of
John Anne. Fortunately, there are two other visitations of the Peck
family of Wakefield from this time period, and, surprisingly, neither
of them mention Robert as this John's son. In one of them, the Tonge
visitation, John Pecke is assigned six sons, whose order of birth is
specified. No Robert.
In the Peck pedigree in the British Library, John Peck is similarly
assigned six sons, whose birth order is stated, plus a seventh son,
Robert Pecke of Beccles whose birth order is NOT stated. This tells
me two things. First, the person who made the pedigree believed that
Robert Pecke, of Beccles, was the son of John Pecke, of Wakefield.
Second, the person who made the pedigree knew of John Peck's six sons
and their birth order, and was unsure where to place Robert Pecke of
Beccles in this family. It is unclear why the person who made this
pedigree was unsure about Robert Pecke's placement. Suffice to say,
this was evidently a problem for the pedigree maker.
And, well it should have been. By my estimation, John Pecke of
Wakefield (husband of Joan Anne) was born say 1490, whereas Robert
Pecke of Beccles appears to have been an adult by 1527, or born in or
before 1506. Also, we know that John Pecke, of Wakefield, died in
1558, and Robert Pecke, of Beccles, died in 1556. If these dates are
correct, then it is impossible chronologically for John Pecke to have
been the father of Robert Pecke, of Beccles. As far as I can tell,
the two men were contemporaries to one another, almost if not the same
age.
Having said that, one must ask why did the pedigree maker think that
Robert Pecke, of Beccles, was a member of the Wakefield family? We
are in the dark about that. All we can know is that he believed that
was the case. If wishes were fishes, I would say that the Beccles
family in the 1630's believed that this was the case. If that was
true, the pedigree maker should have taken the Beccles family pedigree
back to the generation of Robert Pecke, and then said "descended from
the Pecke family of Wakefield, Yorkshire" and left it at that.
Casting around for alternative solutions, if Robert Pecke of Beccles
was not the son of John Pecke, then it is difficult to determine just
where he might fit into the Wakefield family tree. John Pecke of
Wakefield had no brothers, nor did his father. However, John Pecke's
father did have an uncle named Robert Pecke, and it's possible that
this uncle could be the father of Robert Pecke, of Beccles. However,
we have few particulars of the uncle Robert Pecke, except that he was
living in 1516. So even though we have an earlier Robert Pecke in the
Wakefield family tree, there appears to be insufficient evidence to
make a link between him and the later Robert Pecke of Beccles. Sour
grapes (at least for now).
The short end of it: Robert Pecke, of Beccles, Suffolk (died 1556) can
not have been the son of John Pecke, of Wakefield, Yorkshire (died
1558), as alleged by the Pecke pedigree in the British Library. The
proposed royal lineage for the Peck family of New England which you
have set forth has been disproven by contemporary records. If at some
point you find that you're able to establish a link between Robert
Pecke, of Beccles, and the earlier Robert Pecke of the Wakefield
family, you might still be able to work out a valid royal line. For
now, however, you're dead in the water.
I recommend we move onto other matters.
t...@clearwire.net
> Dear Bill ~
>
> I've had a chance to examine the five plates which you sent me which
> contain the pedigree of the Peck family. According to what you have
> told me, these plates are reproductions of an original 17th Century
> pedigree which is found in the British Library. The plates themselves
> are taken from an article on the Peck family which was published in
> the New England Register.
>
> As far as I can tell, the pedigree is genuine and authentic. I have
> no reason to think the pedigree has been tampered with or altered in
> any way. The handwriting is consistent throughout the pedigree.
Including in all three signatures - in other words, it is a copy, and
in dating the writing, you are dating the copy, not the original.
> And, well it should have been. By my estimation, John Pecke of
> Wakefield (husband of Joan Anne) was born say 1490, whereas Robert
> Pecke of Beccles appears to have been an adult by 1527, or born in or
> before 1506.
Based on . . . ? Come on, go ahead and say it. Because he was acting
as executor of an estate.
> The short end of it: Robert Pecke, of Beccles, Suffolk (died 1556) can
> not have been the son of John Pecke, of Wakefield, Yorkshire (died
> 1558), as alleged by the Pecke pedigree in the British Library.
Maybe this will carry more weight coming from the 'gentleman and
scholar' than from everyone else who has raised the same point, dating
back to S. Allyn Peck.
taf
Douglas Richardson
On Dec 1, 12:21 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> Based on . . . ? Come on, go ahead and say it. Because he was acting
> as executor of an estate.
The acting assumption is that anyone appointed an executor or
administrator of an estate is an adult. Since the vast bulk of
executors and administrators were in fact adults, I believe it
is`reasonable to assume that this was the case with Robert Pecke, of
Beccles, who in 1529, was appointed the executor of the estate of his
grandfather or uncle, John Leeke, of Beccles, Suffolk.
In my post earlier today, by the way, I inadvertedly stated that
Robert Pecke, of Beccles, was born by 1506, as I thought he was named
the executor of John Leeke's will in 1527. The correct date of John
Leeke's will is 1529, not 1527. Thus, Robert Pecke would have been
born sometime before 1508, not 1506. If the slip in dates confused
anyone, I apologize.
> Maybe this will carry more weight coming from the 'gentleman and
> scholar' than from everyone else who has raised the same point, dating
> back to S. Allyn Peck.
Gentleman and scholar? Well, thanks, Todd.
> taf
Bill Arnold
scholar' than from everyone else who has raised the same point, dating
back to S. Allyn Peck.
Douglas Richardson: Gentleman and scholar? Well, thanks, Todd.
BA: Occasionally, TAF can get it right, and on this point he does have
it right about gentleman and scholar Douglas Richardson. Thank you,
*The Lion* Douglas Richardson, for that long thoughtful post which
obviously took you considerable time to *construct* and I want all
gen-medieval writers to understand I do appreciate it. Several things
are clear to me, if I can paraphrase your points: The BL Peck Pedigree
is authentic and dates from the mid 17thC, and was probably as stated
by Ira. B. Peck drafted by the College of Arms heralds at the behest
of Nicholas Peck, brother of the Rev. Robert and gateway ancestor
to America Joseph Peck. We all are puzzled *why* Robert Peck,
the Elder, is identified as a member of the Wakefield Peck family?
As a true constructionist, I will continue to ponder it, and those
descendants of Robert Peck, the Elder, who wonder where his
true ancestors came from can be assured if I have something further
to say on this matter, you will hear from me again. So, to put this
in the final sentence of this constructive post: I once again thank
*The Lion* Douglas Richardson known worldwide as the author
or royal ancestry books. Here is hoping that will down the road
The Lion will complete *Charlemagne Ancestry*!
t...@clearwire.net
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> On Dec 1, 12:21 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>
> > Based on . . . ? Come on, go ahead and say it. Because he was acting
> > as executor of an estate.
>
> The acting assumption is that anyone appointed an executor or
> administrator of an estate is an adult. Since the vast bulk of
> executors and administrators were in fact adults, I believe it
> is`reasonable to assume that this was the case with Robert Pecke, of
> Beccles, who in 1529, was appointed the executor of the estate of his
> grandfather or uncle, John Leeke, of Beccles, Suffolk.
Yes, quite. I guess you just find it more persuasive after you have
repeated someone else's point.
> > Maybe this will carry more weight coming from the 'gentleman and
> > scholar' than from everyone else who has raised the same point, dating
> > back to S. Allyn Peck.
>
> Gentleman and scholar? Well, thanks, Todd.
Don't kid yourself.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> TAF: Maybe this will carry more weight coming from the 'gentleman and
> scholar' than from everyone else who has raised the same point, dating
> back to S. Allyn Peck.
>
> it right about gentleman and scholar Douglas Richardson. Thank you,
> *The Lion* Douglas Richardson, for that long thoughtful post which
> obviously took you considerable time to *construct* and I want all
> gen-medieval writers to understand I do appreciate it.
And you could have found everything of what he said concerning the
descent in the various writings since the '30s, and other than a
document showing the letter C from about 1650, no new evidence, which
was supposedly required. Clearly, you care more about the messenger
than the message. That is never good.
> Several things
> are clear to me, if I can paraphrase your points: The BL Peck Pedigree
> is authentic and dates from the mid 17thC,
''Authentic" is a loaded term, and hence not very useful. What he
concluded was that it was entirely in the same script, and that script
dates from the mid-17th century. Now for a document to be in the
same script, that means that it was probably written by the same
person at about the same time - there are no later interpolations into
the document. However, if the surviving manuscript is a copy, that
would eliminate any valuable conclusion except when the copy was made.
The act of copying would cause the interpolation and the original text
to both be written in the same script, a script of the date that the
copy was made, not when originally composed. That the supposed
signatures also appear to be in that same script is suggestive that it
is a copy.
> and was probably as stated
> by Ira. B. Peck drafted by the College of Arms heralds at the behest
> of Nicholas Peck, brother of the Rev. Robert and gateway ancestor
> to America Joseph Peck.
Mr. Richardson never said anything that could be accurately
paraphrased in this manner.
> We all are puzzled *why* Robert Peck,
> the Elder, is identified as a member of the Wakefield Peck family?
Speak for yourself. Here is how the process works. Your name is Peck
and you don't know where your family came from. You go to a
professional genealogist and say, I want you to find a long pedigree
for me. The professional looks at the collections of his guild and
traces your family as far as he can. Unfortunately, that isn't very
far, so then he looks for any other family in the records with the
same name and finds this Peck family of somewhere else, and they have
a pedigree going back much earlier. So, the genealogist approximates
what the right generation should be and makes the connection. The
client is happy, the herald gets paid, and we get misled.
taf
Renia
>
> Given these factors, I doubt the pedigree is earlier than 1630 because
> of the capital C. Thus, the date 1631-1650.
It's later than that. It's either 18th-19th century purporting to be
17th century, or it's straight late 17th-century. The handwriting veers
from the 17th-18th century. It's cusp handwriting, viz, it's during the
transition from late 17th-century writing, but prior to copperplate.
My personal view is one of the family falsely logged on to the older
Peck pedigree. The NEHGS article suggests whom.
More later.
Renia
>
> The short end of it: Robert Pecke, of Beccles, Suffolk (died 1556) can
> not have been the son of John Pecke, of Wakefield, Yorkshire (died
> 1558), as alleged by the Pecke pedigree in the British Library.
I agree. More later.
Renia
> > Maybe this will carry more weight coming from the 'gentleman and
>
>>scholar' than from everyone else who has raised the same point, dating
>>back to S. Allyn Peck.
>>
>>taf
>
>
> More likely it will prove equally unacceptable, and the "gentleman and
> scholar" will begin to be called something less attractive.
>
> I think we have to face the fact that BA has his mind made up about
> the way he wants to write up his family history. It will be a
> romanticised, novelistic account, very lacking in accurate
> genealogy ... and, judging by the *awful* style of all his postings
> here, no work of true and certain literature either.
Plainly, Bill Arnold has not read and digested the NEHGR article.
Renia
Belton is in Suffolk, about 12 miles or so north-east from Beccles. It
is just outside Great Yarmouth.
Renia
This is the pedigree of the Pecks of Woodalling (Wood Dalling), Norfolk.
Pecks had been in the county since at least the 14th century.
Renia
It's in Norfolk, just off what is called the Beccles Road.
Renia
includes the pedigree of Peck of North Cove.
Arms: Argent on a chevron engrailed Gules three crosses pattee of the field
The tabular pedigree begins with the second Robert Peck of Beccles,
Suffolk, who married Ellen Babb, dau of Nicholas Babb of Guildford,
Surrey and names names their son, Nicholas, who married Rachell Young,
daughter of Will Young of Yarmouth, Norfolk.
William Peck, son of Nicholas, is the person who signed the pedigree,
and his six sons are named. He was a gent of North Cove in 1664, and
married Dorothy, daughter of Sir Butts Bacon, Baronet, of Blundesdon,
Suffolk. Neither Robert Peck nor Nicholas Peck were described as "gent"
by their descendant, William.
The coat of arms was the same as that of the Pecks of Wakefield, save
for the final word, where the Wakefield Pecks' blazon was 'pattee of the
first' and the North Cave Pecks' blazon was 'pattee of the field'. It
looks like any error or supposed connection to the Pecks of Wakefield
was made by the Pecks of North Cove before 1668. No mention is made of a
descent from the Pecks of Wakefield in this Suffolk pedigree.
This is possibly the origin of the additional pedigree included in the
plates accompanying the NEGHR article. It begs the question, if it
existed at the time of the Suffolk Visitation in the late 17th century,
why it was not included in that visitation?
Renia
Fryckley, married John Leake of Normanton. The NEHGR article assures us
the surname should be Lake, not Leake.
John Leeke, of Beccles in Suffolk, made his will in 1529, naming his his
wife Margaret and his daughter Katheryn plus grandson, Robert Peck, of
Beccles.
The problems with linking the Pecks of Beccles and the Pecks of
Wakefield, may have originated in some confusion between the Lake
family of Yorkshire and the Leeke family of Suffolk. This connection
seems to have been made or assumed before about 1668, when the notes
were apparently made up for the pedigree of Pecks of Suffolk, yet that
link was not included in the Visitation of Suffolk.
One point to make, is that Peck surname not uncommon in the general East
Anglia area (Norfolk/Suffolk/Cambridgeshire, etc.) There is a chicken
and egg situation? Did the Pecks of Wakefield settle in East Anglia or
did some Pecks of East Anglia settle in Yorkshire? It is possibly the
case that the Yorkshire Pecks are a junior branch of the East Anglia Pecks.
Renia
Suffok, dated 16 April 1525. He styled himself "Henry Peke of Carleton"
and named his wife, Margery, son Robert and Kateryn, daughter.
The article does not claim this Henry Peck as father of Robert Peck of
Beccles, but inserts it for reference for future Peck family historians.
Carlton Colville is 3.5 miles to the south-west of Lowestoft, in
Suffolk. It is about 3 miles east of North Cove and North Cove is about
3 miles east of Beccles.
The Public Record Office catalogue shows the following Henry Pecks.
C 1/223/38 Alice, late the wife of John Smethes, of South Elmham. v.
Henry Pecke and John Taillour, feoffees to uses.: A messuage and land in
South Elmham.: Suffolk. 1493-1500
C 1/345/62 Henry Pecke v. Thomas Bonde and Robert Bygon.: Rents due
on an under-lease of part of the manor of Broughton, between the
ejection of complainant by George Agard on succeeding as tenant in fee
tail and the termination of his lease.: Northants. 1504-1515
REQ 2/5/138 William Haggar, John Cullege, Thomas Edwards and Robert
Thomas, inhabitants of Bourn, Cambridgeshire v John Haggar and Henry
Pecke. Replication only. 1 m. [Standard surname: Culledge, Peck] CBP
Between 1492 and 1547
REQ 2/8/194 William Haggar, Thomas Edwards and Robert Thomas v John
Haggar and Henry Pecke: pasture in Bourn, Cambridgeshire. 1 m. [Standard
surname: Peck] JMP
C 1/241/39 Thomas Higney and Agnes, his wife. v. Elizabeth Warde and
Henry Pek, executors of Robert Warde.: Detention of deeds relating to
land in Kingston.: Cambridge. 1500-1501
C 1/323/64 Thomas Higney and Agnes, his wife, daughter of Robert and
Margaret Warde, and granddaughter and heir of Thomas Warde. v. Henry Pek
and Elizabeth, his wife, [sister of Robert Warde].: Detention of deeds
concerning land in . . . . . brigge, notwithstandingprevious decree in
Chancery requiring their production. 1504-1515
Renia
(will 1556), of Beccles, was probably the grandson of John Leeke (will
1529), also of Beccles. Peck also argued Robert Peck was a man of
"mature years" when his grandfather made his will and was probably born
"about 1500" but certainly before about 1609.
Robert Peck, senior, was not mentioned in the Lay Subsidy for Beccles of
1524, but he had resided there for 12 years according to a deposition he
made in 1537. [NEHGR article] Possibly, this was around the time he married.
Peck also said that by his second wife, Johan Waters (dau of John
Waters, the elder, of Beccles, and his wife Margaret) this Robert Peck
the elder, had six (possibly seven) children, viz. sons John, Robert and
Thomas, Margaret, Olive and Anne, all named in their father's will.
Margaret Waters made her will on 3 Aug 1556, naming her daughter who was
dead by the time Robert Peck made his will two months later.
John Peck, eldest son of this Robert Peck, was aged under 21 years in
1547, when his maternal grandfather, John Waters, the elder, wrote his
will. John Waters also named John Peck's siblings, Robert and Margaret
Peck, also aged under 21 years. Allowing that Robert and Margaret were
not twins, John Peck was born after 1527. By 1556, there were more
siblings, named by their grandmother, Margaret Waters, Olive and Ann.
Their brother, Thomas Peck died leaving a will in 1574 which implies his
siblings John and Margaret were dead, leaving no issue. Olive was now
married to Richard Nott, Anne was still unmarried, and brother Robert
had a son called Richard, his executor.
That Robert Peck the elder was still producing children after 1547,
suggests that his son, John Peck, was born within a decade before that date.
The pedigree, thus far, reads as follows:
JOHN LEEKE, of Beccles, Suffolk, will dated 1529, married Margaret left
issue:
A. a daughter(died between Aug-Oct 1556), had issue:
Robert Peck, born about 1500, of Beccles, Suffolk, who left issue by his
second wife, Johan, dau of John Waters (by his wife Margaret whose will
dd 3 Aug 1556) of Beccles:
B. 1. John, born after 1538, dsp before 1574
B. 2. Robert, who had a son, Richard born before 1574
B. 2. Thomas
B. 2. Olive, born after 1538, married Richard Nott before 1574
B. 2. Margaret, died about 1556
B. 2. Anne
By 1530, John Peck and Jane Anne had six sons and three married
daughters with three other daughters being married that year. The heir
of John Peck is given as Richard Peck. No visitation mentions a Robert
as son of this John, which Robert the NEHGR article computes to have
been born about 1500-9. Such a son would have been named in the
visitation of 1530 unless he had died young and without issue.
This John Peck does name a Robert Peck in his will of 1558, but makes no
mention of any relationship. IF this Robert was his son, he would have
been born after 1530 and would have been to young to have been the same
Robert Peck of Beccles. In all, this John Peck is said to have had nine
sons and nine daughters. Those other 3 sons not named in his will, would
have died young.
Richard Peck, the father of John Peck (who married Jane Anne) wrote his
will in 1516, and named his uncle, Robert Peck, who was still alive at
that time. This uncle does not appear in the visitation. The Inquisition
Post Mortem gave John, Richard's son's age as 26 in 1516, and that he
married Jane Anne in 1507. John's own will of 1558 names his three sons,
John, Thomas and Nicholas. There is no mention of a son called Robert.
The Public Record Office in London has this reference:
C 1/627/25 Thomas Drawer and Katherine, his wife, daughter and heir of
John Leeke. v. Robert Pekk of Beccles: Detention of deeds relating to a
messuage and land in Toft sometime of William Davy, who mortgaged the
same to the said John.: Norfolk. 1529-1532
[The text of this is reprinted in the NEHGR article.]
wjhonson
> > Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> > From: mar...@earthworld.com (Marlyn Lewis)
> > Date: 1998/03/22
> > Subject: Reade.
>
> > Visitations, this family of William Reade of Beccles (born, say 1475) had a
> > daughter Elizabeth who married Augustine Steward, Esq. of Norwich (son of Geoffrey
> > Steward and Cycelle Boyce, daughter of Augustine Boyce), and their daughter
> > Elizabeth married Thomas Sotherton. The son of Thomas Sotherton and Elizabeth
> > Steward was Augustine Sotherton of Hesleden, Norfolk who married 22 Sep 1572 to
> > Anne Peche (Peck) and he died 26 Mar 1585. The line then descends to the their
> > daughter Elizabeth Sotherton who married Thomas Warner, and their son Augustine
> > Warner (1611-1674) died in Virginia.
Thank you Renia for pulling that out of the archives. I had not had
this continuation of the ancestry of President George Washington in my
database. As to the "Visitation", Marilyn mentions here, she does not
specify, but I have found it, or at least one repeating it here
http://books.google.com/books?id=HS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA269&dq=%22Thomas+Sotherton%22+elizabeth+steward
In the Vis Norfolk, 1563, 1589, 1613 compilation
Very useful for linking this family, earlier, into the various other
families with who they tied. Helps with the chronology.
Will Johnson
wjhonson
> The NEHGR article mentions the Visitation of Suffolk, 1664-1668, which
> includes the pedigree of Peck of North Cove.
>
> Arms: Argent on a chevron engrailed Gules three crosses pattee of the field
>
> The tabular pedigree begins with the second Robert Peck of Beccles,
> Suffolk, who married Ellen Babb, dau of Nicholas Babb of Guildford,
> Surrey and names names their son, Nicholas, who married Rachell Young,
> daughter of Will Young of Yarmouth, Norfolk.
>
> William Peck, son of Nicholas, is the person who signed the pedigree,
> and his six sons are named. He was a gent of North Cove in 1664, and
> Suffolk. Neither Robert Peck nor Nicholas Peck were described as "gent"
> by their descendant, William.
>
Are you sure that Sir Butts Bacon wasn't possibly of Blundeston,
Norfolk ?
By the way I believe he was created 1st Bart of Mildenhall, Suffolk
(cr 1627)
It would make sense that he had a daughter Dorothy, as he is supposed
to have married Dorothy Warner (on 4 Jul 1611 at Culford, Suffolk),
dau of Sir Henry Warner of Mildenhall
Will Johnson
wjhonson
> Are you sure that SirButtsBacon wasn't possibly of Blundeston,
> Norfolk ?
> By the way I believe he was created 1st Bart of Mildenhall, Suffolk
> (cr 1627)
>
> It would make sense that he had a daughter Dorothy, as he is supposed
> to have married Dorothy Warner (on 4 Jul 1611 at Culford, Suffolk),
> dau of Sir Henry Warner of Mildenhall
>
> Will Johnson
A bit further on this Warner/Bacon connection see
http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=7608&path=Wills+of+the+Archdeaconry+of+Sudbury+1636-1638.The+Wills.The+Wills.5&sid=&gskw=dorothy+bacon&cr=1
Renia
> On Dec 2, 1:04 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
>
>>The NEHGR article mentions the Visitation of Suffolk, 1664-1668, which
>>includes the pedigree of Peck of North Cove.
>>
>>Arms: Argent on a chevron engrailed Gules three crosses pattee of the field
>>
>>The tabular pedigree begins with the second Robert Peck of Beccles,
>>Suffolk, who married Ellen Babb, dau of Nicholas Babb of Guildford,
>>Surrey and names names their son, Nicholas, who married Rachell Young,
>>daughter of Will Young of Yarmouth, Norfolk.
>>
>>William Peck, son of Nicholas, is the person who signed the pedigree,
>>and his six sons are named. He was a gent of North Cove in 1664, and
>>married Dorothy, daughter of SirButtsBacon, Baronet, of Blundesdon,
>>Suffolk. Neither Robert Peck nor Nicholas Peck were described as "gent"
>>by their descendant, William.
>>
>
> ----------------------------
> Are you sure that Sir Butts Bacon wasn't possibly of Blundeston,
> Norfolk ?
Possibly. I don't have the pedigree the visitation to hand now. There
can't be that many contemporaries called Sir Butts Bacon.
I'm surprised Bill Arnold hasn't commented on any of my postings about
the Peck family. Perhaps he hasn't received them?
Renia
Peck family.
A gentleman scholar is someone who does your work for you, Bill?
Bill Arnold
Ba: Renia, Dah'ling, as it is said over in Palm Bleach, Florida, I luv you dearly!
You must have missed my praise of you and Will in the same *Breathless*
breath about JimPup owing you all *Grace* because you wrote about his line:
Anne Peck. Of course, because this list has been so unkind to newcomers
JimPup is fearful of popping up his head that you all might cut it off again:
a nasty habit of Royalty! Now, Renia, read that post and come back at me,
if you wish: Sweetheart, as we say here in the south to ones we truly love!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Renia
> Renia: Total silence from Bill Arnold regarding my multiple posts about the
> Peck family. A gentleman scholar is someone who does your work for you, Bill?
>
> Ba: Renia, Dah'ling, as it is said over in Palm Bleach, Florida, I luv you dearly!
> You must have missed my praise of you and Will in the same *Breathless*
> breath about JimPup owing you all *Grace* because you wrote about his line:
> Anne Peck. Of course, because this list has been so unkind to newcomers
> JimPup is fearful of popping up his head that you all might cut it off again:
> a nasty habit of Royalty! Now, Renia, read that post and come back at me,
> if you wish: Sweetheart, as we say here in the south to ones we truly love!
I saw that post. But you made no comment as to your thoughts on my analysis.
Bill Arnold
--- Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
BA: OK, Renia, let me be candid! Do you think that Bill Arnold lives in a vacuum?
People send me *private* emails, even *call* me on the telephone? What a novel
idea? Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, and he brings bright colored wrapped
packages to bright-eyed and bushy-tailed happy kids who grow up to be snarly
and mean adults! Hey, Renia, I did *not* make this world: < G > did! I inhabit
it. Now, some people I correspond with and talk with on the phone have suggested
to Bill Arnold to *lay-low* and let the Peck stuff chill! What a novel idea? Yes:
I consulted the archives and I have posted *circa* 600 posts! Holy Cow! And almost
all on Peck! I thank Nat Taylor, gentleman and scholar, for aligning the Magruders,
Scots of the first order, of which I descent from William I The Conqueror King of
England from Charlemagne. I am sure Douglas Richardson when he compiles
his *Charlemagne Ancestry* which will be a block-buster best-seller here in the
*States* will include the *Magruder* line back to the Scots. And you and Will
and jump on board. I note Will has taken note. I am only a tad little disappointed
that it took me *dropping* the Peck Football for you to pick it up, and declare
to the *field* that suddenly Little Renia wants to play! God bless you! You are
sweet! So: what do I think of your analysis? Well, where were you when I was
taking mortar rounds over Mount Suribachi at my dug-in position on the beach
and enemy aircraft were strafing my hole in the mud? What am I to think, when
gen-medievalers revel in my wake, the parade of jesters jeer my risen from the
dead, and my head has been stuck on pole on the ramparts stinking to High
Heaven for nigh this fortnight: and the guard at post cries, "Hark, the cock
crows, the sun is up, and all is well with the world.
Bill
Bill Arnold
billar...@yahoo.com
MFA, U-Mass, Amherst
Dickinson Scholar
Independent Scholar
Independent Scholar, Modern Language Association
Professor of world literature classics
Author, EMILY DICKINSON'S SECRET LOVE: Mystery "Master" Behind Poems,
230 pages, 1998.
ISBN 1-892582-00-7
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is magic in the web" Shakespeare (Othello, Act 3, Scene 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Renia
> --- Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Arnold wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Renia: Total silence from Bill Arnold regarding my multiple posts about the
>>>Peck family. A gentleman scholar is someone who does your work for you, Bill?
>>>
>>>Ba: Renia, Dah'ling, as it is said over in Palm Bleach, Florida, I luv you dearly!
>>>You must have missed my praise of you and Will in the same *Breathless*
>>>breath about JimPup owing you all *Grace* because you wrote about his line:
>>>Anne Peck. Of course, because this list has been so unkind to newcomers
>>>JimPup is fearful of popping up his head that you all might cut it off again:
>>>a nasty habit of Royalty! Now, Renia, read that post and come back at me,
>>>if you wish: Sweetheart, as we say here in the south to ones we truly love!
>>
>>I saw that post. But you made no comment as to your thoughts on my analysis.
>>
>
>
> BA: OK, Renia, let me be candid! Do you think that Bill Arnold lives in a vacuum?
> People send me *private* emails, even *call* me on the telephone?
Fine, but we have shared no private emails or telephone calls about the
Pecks or any other subject.
> What a novel
> idea? Yes, Virginia,
Now, who else do I know who personally knows Virginia?
> there is a Santa Claus, and he brings bright colored wrapped
> packages to bright-eyed and bushy-tailed happy kids who grow up to be snarly
> and mean adults! Hey, Renia, I did *not* make this world: < G > did! I inhabit
> it.
Same here. Now, what do you think of the several posts I made about the
Pecks?
> Now, some people I correspond with and talk with on the phone have suggested
> to Bill Arnold to *lay-low* and let the Peck stuff chill!
Probably a good idea. But, two things:
First, you are quite correct in saying this family his been little
discussed on this newsgroup.
Second, it would be a politeness for you to respond to the comments I
made on the NEHGR article.
> What a novel idea? Yes:
> I consulted the archives and I have posted *circa* 600 posts! Holy Cow! And almost
> all on Peck! I thank Nat Taylor, gentleman and scholar, for aligning the Magruders,
> Scots of the first order, of which I descent from William I The Conqueror King of
> England from Charlemagne.
Fine, but where do the Pecks come in?
> I am sure Douglas Richardson when he compiles
> his *Charlemagne Ancestry* which will be a block-buster best-seller here in the
> *States* will include the *Magruder* line back to the Scots. And you and Will
> and jump on board. I note Will has taken note. I am only a tad little disappointed
> that it took me *dropping* the Peck Football for you to pick it up,
I'm not a Peck. I'm not even American. I have no Peck relatives
whatsoever so I would never have picked up on that article but for your
stupid attitude to genealogy. Had you actually read and understood that
article, you would never have posted those 600 ridiculous posts.
> and declare
> to the *field* that suddenly Little Renia wants to play! God bless you! You are
> sweet! So: what do I think of your analysis? Well, where were you when I was
> taking mortar rounds over Mount Suribachi at my dug-in position on the beach
What has that to do with anything?. I wasn't even born so don't blame me
for not taking mortar-rounds with you.
> and enemy aircraft were strafing my hole in the mud? What am I to think, when
> gen-medievalers revel in my wake, the parade of jesters jeer my risen from the
> dead, and my head has been stuck on pole on the ramparts stinking to High
> Heaven for nigh this fortnight: and the guard at post cries, "Hark, the cock
> crows, the sun is up, and all is well with the world.
What the hell are you talking about?
So, do you still think the Pecks descend from Charlemagne?
Bill Arnold
*Magruder* line back to the Scots. And you and Will and jump on board. I note
Will has taken note. I am only a tad little disappointed that it took me *dropping*
Renia: I'm not a Peck. I'm not even American. I have no Peck relatives
whatsoever so I would never have picked up on that article but for your
stupid attitude to genealogy. Had you actually read and understood that
article, you would never have posted those 600 ridiculous posts. So, do you still
think the Pecks descend from Charlemagne?
BA: Interesante. So, now, you state you read an article on the Pecks because
of my "stupid attitude to genealogy." That was your *stated* motivation? You
wrote that, not me. I am *underwhelmed* by such a stupid attitude toward
genealogy by you, not me. I not only *read* the 1930s articles in the Register,
I also understood them. I stated flatly two things, neither of which you now
acknowledge in your ad hominem: (1) I read it and acknowledged the *FACTS*
therein but did not agree with all the *OPINIONS* of the authors about those
facts. And now, my "600 ridiculous posts" have got your dander up and snarly
and you wish me to say something gentlemanly about your ad hominems. Nah.
No. Zilch. Zippo. Nada. No way, Jose. Forgeddabouditt! And in answer to my
thoughts about the Peck descent from Charlemagne? Sheesh. That is a tough
one. As a gentleman and a scholar, I find because of the hard work of John
Higgins, Nat Taylor, and others who emailed me off-list, and spoke to me on
the telephone, I would have to tell you as a naif among giants in medieval
genealogy: I do *not* know. I do know the following: there is in the Brit Lib
a Peck Pedigree which alleges it; the parentage of Robert Peck, the Elder,
the grandfather of gateway ancestor Joseph Peck, emigrant to America in 1638,
is still in *limbo* and *WILL* be pursued by scholars in perpetuity as long as
the archives of gen-medieval exist: so help me < G >! Once all extant records
in England and Scotland and elsewhere which impinge upon this scholarly
question are studied in depth, court, chancery, deed, wills, IPMs, et al., and
a final resolution as to the parentage of Robert Peck, the Elder, is established,
then it might indeed turn out that this Englishman of the 15th/16thC had
descent from Charlemagne. Who knows? You certainly do not.
Renia
> BA: I am sure Douglas Richardson when he compiles his *Charlemagne Ancestry*
> which will be a block-buster best-seller here in the *States* will include the
> *Magruder* line back to the Scots. And you and Will and jump on board. I note
> Will has taken note. I am only a tad little disappointed that it took me *dropping*
> the Peck Football for you to pick it up....
>
> Renia: I'm not a Peck. I'm not even American. I have no Peck relatives
> whatsoever so I would never have picked up on that article but for your
> stupid attitude to genealogy. Had you actually read and understood that
> article, you would never have posted those 600 ridiculous posts. So, do you still
> think the Pecks descend from Charlemagne?
>
> BA: Interesante. So, now, you state you read an article on the Pecks because
> of my "stupid attitude to genealogy." That was your *stated* motivation? You
> wrote that, not me. I am *underwhelmed* by such a stupid attitude toward
> genealogy by you, not me. I not only *read* the 1930s articles in the Register,
> I also understood them.
Apparently, you didn't, because you ranted and raved, as you have done
in this post, that people aren't gentlemen and scholars if they don't
agree with you.
The article makes it quite clear the Suffolk Pecks do not descend from
the Yorkshire Pecks. The article even gives a possible father for Robert
Peck, the elder. You have ignored all this.
> I stated flatly two things, neither of which you now
> acknowledge in your ad hominem: (1) I read it and acknowledged the *FACTS*
Only those *FACTS* which you choose to be facts. Anything else, as you
say below, is *OPINION*.
> therein but did not agree with all the *OPINIONS* of the authors about those
> facts. And now, my "600 ridiculous posts" have got your dander up and snarly
> and you wish me to say something gentlemanly about your ad hominems. Nah.
As to ad hominems, you are the master of them. I spent some time
studying the article for you, made some points, and waited for your
answer so we could discuss it. Nothing.
> No. Zilch. Zippo. Nada. No way, Jose. Forgeddabouditt! And in answer to my
> thoughts about the Peck descent from Charlemagne? Sheesh. That is a tough
> one. As a gentleman and a scholar, I find because of the hard work of John
> Higgins, Nat Taylor, and others who emailed me off-list, and spoke to me on
> the telephone, I would have to tell you as a naif among giants in medieval
> genealogy: I do *not* know.
Fair comment.
> I do know the following: there is in the Brit Lib
> a Peck Pedigree which alleges it; the parentage of Robert Peck, the Elder,
> the grandfather of gateway ancestor Joseph Peck, emigrant to America in 1638,
> is still in *limbo* and *WILL* be pursued by scholars in perpetuity as long as
> the archives of gen-medieval exist: so help me < G >!
And this is just what I tried to help you to do in my series of posts on
the subject. But you didn't reply or seem to want to discuss it.
> Once all extant records
> in England and Scotland and elsewhere which impinge upon this scholarly
> question are studied in depth, court, chancery, deed, wills, IPMs, et al., and
> a final resolution as to the parentage of Robert Peck, the Elder, is established,
> then it might indeed turn out that this Englishman of the 15th/16thC had
> descent from Charlemagne. Who knows? You certainly do not.
No, I don't and I don't really care.
But you have ranted and raved about all this, so I thought I would try
and help you. Now you're ranting and raving again.
I helped you before with some of the Middleton stuff. Now I've looked at
your Pecks for you.
You really are an ungrateful and very rude little man.
Enter ad hominem here:
Bill Arnold
gateway ancestor Joseph Peck, emigrant to America in 1638, is still in
*limbo* and *WILL* be pursued by scholars in perpetuity as long as
the archives of gen-medieval exist: so help me < G >!
Renia: And this is just what I tried to help you to do in my series of posts on
the subject. But you didn't reply or seem to want to discuss it.
BA: You need to visit your optometrist! I explained effusively why after 600
Peck posts I stood aside.
BA: Once all extant records in England and Scotland and elsewhere which
impinge upon this scholarly question are studied in depth, court, chancery,
deed, wills, IPMs, et al., and a final resolution as to the parentage of Robert Peck,
the Elder, is established, then it might indeed turn out that this Englishman of
the 15th/16thC had descent from Charlemagne. Who knows? You certainly do not.
Renia: No, I don't and I don't really care.
BA: Sheesh. Well tell me something I do *not* know. But worldwide there are enough
genealogy scholars who *care* to find out and will publish about it: maybe right here
at gen-medieval.
Renia: But you have ranted and raved about all this, so I thought I would try
and help you. Now you're ranting and raving again. I helped you before with some of
the Middleton stuff. Now I've looked at your Pecks for you. You really are an ungrateful
and very rude little man.
BA: I stand six foot tall. And I am not ungrateful, I have praised you more than once,
and TAF rarely if ever, DSH never, et al. Consult the archives. As to where you *stand*
right now, it is right in front of us: The Ice Princess. And you ought to know, as an
American, we stopped curtsying the day we dump English tea in Boston harbor and
started a revolution. Evolve, Ice Princess, it would become you.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Renia
>
> BA: Once all extant records in England and Scotland and elsewhere which
> impinge upon this scholarly question are studied in depth, court, chancery,
> deed, wills, IPMs, et al., and a final resolution as to the parentage of Robert Peck,
> the Elder, is established, then it might indeed turn out that this Englishman of
> the 15th/16thC had descent from Charlemagne. Who knows? You certainly do not.
>
> Renia: No, I don't and I don't really care.
>
> BA: Sheesh. Well tell me something I do *not* know. But worldwide there are enough
> genealogy scholars who *care* to find out and will publish about it: maybe right here
> at gen-medieval.
I did already.
Renia
I really don't know what this is all about. I try to help you and you
evade the issue by proclaiming you gave reasons why you're not talking
about the Pecks any more. But you gave those reasons AFTER I'd done your
research for you.
Now, you are calling me names because I did your work for you.
You may be tall, but you are a very little man. You do not act like a
scholar at all. You have not received a degree, have you? If you have,
then you would know what I am talking about.
Bill Arnold
and TAF rarely if ever, DSH never, et al. Consult the archives. As to where you *stand*
right now, it is right in front of us: The Ice Princess. And you ought to know, as an
American, we stopped curtsying the day we dump English tea in Boston harbor and
started a revolution. Evolve, Ice Princess, it would become you.
Renia: I really don't know what this is all about. I try to help you and you
evade the issue by proclaiming you gave reasons why you're not talking
about the Pecks any more. But you gave those reasons AFTER I'd done your
research for you. Now, you are calling me names because I did your work for you.
BA: *The Ice Princess* is an Honorific, like HM the Queen!
Renia: You may be tall, but you are a very little man. You do not act like a
scholar at all. You have not received a degree, have you? If you have,
then you would know what I am talking about.
BA: Et tu, Brute? Degree? I have several, a five-year degree, B.B.A. in Finance
from U-Mass, Amherst, with a minor in English, and taught English in the Ed-block
at Holyoke High School in 1964: my *Blackboard Jungle* days. As for my
advanced degree, in which I had to show reading proficiency in a foreign
language, French, and which was a *teaching* degree of 60-grad hours at
the same institution, I did receive it in 1967 and am entitled to the following
sig file:
We are still on square one: love :)
Bill Arnold
Bill Arnold
billar...@yahoo.com
MFA, U-Mass, Amherst
Dickinson Scholar
Independent Scholar
Independent Scholar, Modern Language Association
Professor of world literature classics
Author, EMILY DICKINSON'S SECRET LOVE: Mystery "Master" Behind Poems,
230 pages, 1998.
ISBN 1-892582-00-7
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is magic in the web" Shakespeare (Othello, Act 3, Scene 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/6/2007 6:59:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
billar...@yahoo.com writes:
BA: Once all extant records in England and Scotland and elsewhere which
impinge upon this scholarly question are studied in depth, court, chancery,
deed, wills, IPMs, et al., and a final resolution as to the parentage of
Robert Peck,
the Elder, is established, then it might indeed turn out that this
Englishman of
the 15th/16thC had descent from Charlemagne. Who knows? You certainly do
not.
-----------------
Well then Bill, get started.
Why are you waiting for DR to do your heavy lifting, you can do it by
yourself.
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Bill Arnold
unpleasant topic ...
http://www.amazon.com/Make-Them-Happy-Pay-Collecting/dp/9990659222
BA: Boy, JB, did you step in the deep doo-doo cow patties with TAF! Are you out
there in the far west visiting? You claim to be a genealogist and do not even have
the where-with-all to realize there is an *IDENTITY* crisis in your work. It ain't
me, Dim Wit!
Bill
*****
Bill Arnold
attention to lists of previous works which may occur on bookjackets,
back covers (otherwise known as "p. 4 of cover"), and opposite title
pages. However, of course, they do make mistakes from time to time,
so they may have conflated two Bill Arnolds in the present instance.
BA: No, JB, *YOU* conflated two different Bill Arnolds. Sheesh. There are
six Bill Arnolds out of 1,000,000 residents of Palm Beach County. Wake up,
Dim Wit! Is this the level of *expertise* of your genealogical work?
John Brandon: But is it really a good sign that Palm Beach Community College
couldn't track you down?
BA: Consult the archives, Dim Wit. I am retired and left PBCC as an adjunct
professor in 1998. Good Lord, you have really worked yourself into a sweat.
Next you'll get in touch with Iain Calder? Please do. Also read his book:
*The Untold Story.* He is a very literate Brit, and the adjective does *not*
fit you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer
Bill Arnold
John Brandon: No, FOOL, I was merely following the *explicit* statement in OCLC that
the same Bill Arnold is author of _Make Them Happy ... Make Them Pay_
and _The Secret Lovechild of Emily D._, er whatever rubbish it was ...
[Emily Dickinson's Secret Love]
BA: Trust me on this, I am a journalist. We journalists have a lot of useful
sayings which sum up Dim Wits like you: believe half of what you see and hear,
and none of what John Brandon and Peter Stewart writes!
Bill
*****
Bill Arnold
well ...
BA: So you do *not* keep up with this charade of *IDENTITY* falsehoods,
you might as well find out there is only *one* Dickinson scholar Bill Arnold,
so click the clickable and scroll down to *Emily Dickinson's Secret Love*:
http://jeffbooks.com/EmilyDickinson.html
Peter Stewart
"Bill Arnold" <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.355.11969756...@rootsweb.com...
> BA: No, JB, *YOU* conflated two different Bill Arnolds. Sheesh. There
> are....
>
> John Brandon: No, FOOL, I was merely following the *explicit* statement in
> OCLC that
> the same Bill Arnold is author of _Make Them Happy ... Make Them Pay_
> and _The Secret Lovechild of Emily D._, er whatever rubbish it was ...
> [Emily Dickinson's Secret Love]
>
> BA: Trust me on this, I am a journalist. We journalists have a lot of
> useful
> sayings which sum up Dim Wits like you: believe half of what you see and
> hear,
> and none of what John Brandon and Peter Stewart writes!
Now Arnold is conflating John Brandon and Peter Stewart, with a singular
verb.
Some journalist.
Peter Stewart
sangreel
The history of Market Harborough: with that portion of the hundred of ...
By John Harwood Hill
Page: 131
[This is a very well written source, IMHO, well worth a read]
KNOSSINGTON AND THEIR PATRONS.
MONUMENTAL INSCRIPTIONS.
In the Nave :—
"ROBERT PECK, and ELIZABETH his wife, died in 1695. ELIZABETH daughter of Robert and Elizabeth Peck, died 1695."
"ANNE PECK, second daughter of Henry and Jane Peck, departed this life June 30, 1721, setatis sure. 16."
"HENRY PECK, died Aug. 7, 1753, aged 66."
"ANNE the wife of Henry Peck, departed this life, May 29, 1755, aged 71."
"ROBERT PECK, gent, departed this life, June 14, 1773, aged 49 years."
"ELIZABETH PECK, died Oct 24, 1786, aged 83."
Pedigree follows on page 132.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7PxGAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22robert%20peck%22&pg=PA131#v=onepage&q=%22robert%20peck%22&f=false
Please read and give me your learned impressions. I descend from the Fitch / Mason connection, via Elizabeth Mason. Major John Mason being my 10 grandfather.
In my PAF program I have cut off the Peck line at Robert Peck and Joan Waters.
Without solid proof, with reputable sources, I can not take this line any further in good conscience. Any help would be GREAT! I did find this Roots Web
world connect pedigree, but..... I have found so many errors, I shy away from them all together.
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=lorenfamily&id=I04417
Thank you in advance!
Michael Warner
Wjhonson
Two of Simon Peck's children (by Joan Pope evidently) are listed in the register of Wigston Magna, Leic.
This Simon and Stephen given here. Is it known that he was minister of that place exactly ?
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message
Wjhonson
Copy marriage settlement (lease and release) FRE/8481-8482 18 May 1806
These documents are held at East Sussex Record Office
Contents:
By Henry Peck of Knossington, gent with his only son Robert Peck of Knossington, gent and Job Peck of Enderby, gent to William Hand of Oakham, grazier, his only daughter Elizabeth Hand of Oakham, Rutland, spinster, William Cumbrey of Exton, Rutland, grocer and Richard Raworth of Knossington, grazier, 19 & 20 Oct 1749;
Property in Knossington as in FRE/8479 (but the six closes are now called seven, the Hovel close being divided into two)
In consideration of a marriage to take place between Robert Peck and Elizabeth Hand and £500 marriage portion to be paid by William Hand to Henry Peck, he with Robert and Job Peck convey to Cumbrey and Raworth to the use of Henry Job Peck until the marriage takes place, then of Robert Peck and Elizabeth Hand and their heirs.
-----Original Message-----
From: sangreel <sang...@msn.com>
To: soc.genealogy.medieval <soc.genealo...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Mar 11, 2012 1:53 am
Subject: Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: John Peck - Robert Peck