C.P. Addition: Clue to Origin of Ralph de Monthermer, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford
Douglas Richardson
King Edwrad I's daughter, Joan of England, married (2nd) in 1297 Sir
Ralph de Monthermer, Knt., a member of her first husband's household.
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 709-710 (sub Gloucester) says the
following regarding this marriage and Ralph's parentage:
"She [Joan] married, 2ndly, clandestinely, to her father's great
displeasure, presumably early in 1297, Ralph de Monthermer, a member
of the late Earl's household. On 29 Jan. 1296/7 the escheator was
ordered to take into his hand all the lands, goods and chattels of
Joan, Countess of Gloucester, from which it might be inferred that the
King, suspecting her intentions with regard to Monthermer, sought to
coerce her to abandon the marriage by degradation and loss of
estates. On 16 March the King gave his assent to her marriage with
Amadeus of Savoy, and therefore must have been ignorant of her
marriage, if it had already taken place, and on 12 May it was ordered
that Joan should have reasonable allowance for herself and children.
It would seem that by 3 July the King had discovered Joan's marriage
with Monthermer, for he took her lands into his own hand, but by 31
July, when he certainly knew of the marriage, he appears to have been
partly mollified, for her lands were restored (except Tonbridge); in
ordering her to provide 100 men to serve in France, however, the
special proviso was made that they might be commanded by anyone except
Ralph de Monthermer, her husband. She was pardoned two days later, 2
August 1297."
"Ralph de Monthermer, whose parentage is unknown, is said to have come
from the bishopric of Durham. He was in the household of Gilbert,
Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, whose widow Joan appears to have been
attracted by his personal charms, and to have obtained a knighthood
for him. He married the said Joan, daughter of Edward I, apparently
some time early in 1297, as mentioned above. The King, on discovering
the marriage, was extremely angry, and imprisoned Monthermer in
Bristol, but by the intercession of prelates and magnates he was
reconciled to Monthermer, who had pardon and did homage to the King
and Prince Edward 2 August 1297 at Eltham ... In consequence of his
marriage and as tenant of his wife's estates, he was styled Earl of
Gloucester and Hertford during her life, but never acquired full
comital rank .... he lost the name of Earl at his wife's death." END
OF QUOTE.
As we can see, the parentage and ancestry of Sir Ralph de Monthermer
are completely unknown. Moreover, no trace of Sir Ralph de Monthermer
has been found in Durham records. However, an excellent clue to Sir
Ralph de Monthermer's origin was recently pointed out to me by my good
friend, Andrew MacEwen, of Maine, the expert on all things Scottish.
Mr. MacEwen has informed me that on 28 October 1303, a safe conduct
was granted as Skamskynel to Ralph de Monthermer, Earl of Gloucester,
and to his "bachelor and cousin," Sir John Bluet [Reference: Joseph
Bain, Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, 4 (1888): 370].
This record appears to have been completely overlooked by Complete
Peerage.
The Sir John Bluet named in this record would surely be the Sir John
Bluet, died 1317, of Silchester, Hampshire and Lacock, Wiltshire,
which Sir John is a lineal descendant of the Ralph Bluet, of same, who
married c. 1150 Isabel de Beaumont, widow of Gilbert Fitz Gilbert,
Earl of Pembroke. For particulars of this Sir John Bluet, see the
brief account of him in VCH Hampshire, Volume 4, which is available at
the following weblink:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=56744
Inasmuch as the given name, Ralph, occurs repeatedly in the Bluet
family, it seems quite possible that Sir Ralph de Monthermer obtained
his given name through his connection to the Bluet family. Sir John
Bluet had a grandfather, great-grandfather, uncle, and brother all
named Ralph. So the name Ralph definitely ran in this branch of the
Bluet family. This matter deserves further study.
Special thanks go to Andrew MacEwen for generously sharing his
research findings with me regarding Sir Ralph de Monthermer, Earl of
Gloucester and Hertford.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> The Sir John Bluet named in this record would surely be the Sir John
> Bluet, died 1317, of Silchester, Hampshire and Lacock, Wiltshire,
> which Sir John is a lineal descendant of the Ralph Bluet, of same, who
> married c. 1150 Isabel de Beaumont, widow of Gilbert Fitz Gilbert,
> Earl of Pembroke.
Dear Douglas
You are here presenting supposition as fact: Ralph Bluet may well have
married the widow of the Earl of Pembroke, as you suppose, but there
is no proof that he did.
Nevertheless, Andrew MacEwen's research find is indeed an interesting
one.
Best wishes, Michael
John P. Ravilious
An interesting find; thanks to you and to Andrew for bringing
this to the attention of the list.
I'd like to make an alternate suggestion, however. Given that
Sir John Bluet is identified as the 'bachelor and cousin' of Ralph
Monthermer in 1303, John Bluet was clearly junior in age to Ralph in
age (and rank) at that time. There are pedigrees of the Bluet family
which allege a marriage of Ralph Bluet to a "Llowis, sister of Gilbert
de Monthermer, Earl of Hereford and Gloucester" [Vivian's Vis.
Cornwall, "Blewett of Colan"] or to "Avis, sister of Gilbert de
Monthermer" [Vis. Devon, 1564, "Blewett"]. Specific errors in these
identifications are obvious, but the implication that Ralph de
Monthermer had a sister married to Ralph Bluet leads one to surmise
that John Bluet was most likely a nephew (presumably "consanguineus"
in the original Latin text as translated in Bain), and not
'cousin' (modern definitiion), of Ralph de Monthermer.
Cheers,
John
Peter Stewart
<deletion>
> Inasmuch as the given name, Ralph, occurs repeatedly in the Bluet
> family, it seems quite possible that Sir Ralph de Monthermer obtained
> his given name through his connection to the Bluet family. Sir John
> Bluet had a grandfather, great-grandfather, uncle, and brother all
> named Ralph. So the name Ralph definitely ran in this branch of the
> Bluet family. This matter deserves further study.
Good luck with that.
The name Ralph was so common amongst Anglo-Norman families that it
occurred and recurred independently in a great many intermarrying
families - perhaps rather than "it seems quite possible" above, it
would be safer to embark on further research after this particular
genealogical Bong tree (preferably in a beautiful pea-green boat with
Brandon as feline companion) from the premise that "it seems not
impossible".
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
In my previous post, I identified Earl Ralph de Monthermer's "bachelor
and cousin" named Sir John Bluet as likely being the Sir John Bluet,
of Silchester, Hampshire, who ellegedly died in 1317. I checked
Moor's Knights of Edward I earlier today. He shows only one Sir John
Bluet in this time frame, he being the Hampshire man. Specifically he
shows that Sir John Bluet, who was holding £20 of lands in Hampshire,
was summoned to serve against the Scots in 1300 [Reference: Moor,
Knights of Edward I, 1 (H.S.P. 80): 100, citing P.W.]. So, it would
appear that the Hampshire man is definitely the right individual who
was Earl Ralph de Monthermer's bachelor in Scotland.
Sir John Bluet, of Hampshire, was hardly Earl Ralph de Monthermer's
nephew as you have suggested. Rather, the two men were approximately
the same age and were roughly contemporaries to one another. Sir John
Bluet first occurs in the records in 1287, he then being in the
service of the Earl of Norfolk [Reference: Ibid.]. He evidently
served as an envoy for Joan of England sometime in the period,
1272-1290, which service predates Joan's marriage to Ralph de
Monthermer by several years [References: List of Ancient
Correspondence (Lists and Indexes, No. XV), pg. 274, correlated with
Index to Ancient Correspondence of the Chancery and the Exchequer
(Lists and Indexes Supp. Ser. XV) sub Bluet). I find that Sir John
Bluet ["domini Johannis Bluet"] presented to the church of Silchester,
Hampshire in 1302 [Reference: John de Pontissara, Winchester
Registers, Pt. 2 (Surrey Rec. Soc. No. IV) (1915): 146]. Sir John
Bluet was survived by a younger second wife, Eleanor, who was
previously the wife of a Bartholomew de Brianzon. This Bartholomew de
Brianzon was himself a descendant of the later Counts of Eu, as
indicated by VCH Essex.
The two Bluet pedigrees which you mentioned in your post seem to be a
bit garbled. All the same, they may well contain a grain of truth in
alleging a Bluet-Monthermer marriage. Such a marriage would make
certainly sense given the record which Andrew MacEwen located in which
Sir John Bluet is styled Earl Ralph de Monthermer's cousin. At their
nearest kinship, however, Sir John and Earl Ralph can only have been
first cousins to one another.
A late date pedigree found in the Plea Rolls identifies Sir John
Bluet's father as Robert Bluet [Reference: Genealogist, n.s. 20
(1904): 97-98]. I haven't studied the records yet to confirm that
pedigree. Perhaps Robert Bluet is the Bluet individual who had the
marriage to a Monthermer woman. Whatever the case, Sir John is surely
descended from an earlier Sir William Bluet, of Lacock, Wiltshire,
living c. 1260, who had a wife named Margaret, for whom see Rogers,
Lacock Abbey Charters (Wiltshire Rec. Soc. 34) (1979).
This matter deserves further study.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1179829604.7...@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Sir John Bluet, of Hampshire, was hardly Earl Ralph de Monthermer's
> nephew as you have suggested. Rather, the two men were approximately
> the same age and were roughly contemporaries to one another.
Is there perhaps another of your "rules of thumb" to the effect that a
nephew must always be a certain number of years younger than his uncle?
I know several people who are older than their own aunts and uncles. They
would be surprised to learn that they are outside the limits of genealogical
possibility.
Or is there some actual evidence that Ralph de Monthermer could not have had
a full- or half-sister some 15 or so years his senior who married a Bluet?
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
Here is a link to an interesting discussion about Joan of England's
two husbands, Earl Gilbert de Clare and Earl Ralph de Monthermer,
followed by discussion of an indenture dated 1297 between Sir John
Bluet, of Silchester, Hampshire and William Martel. Again, we find
the Monthermer-Bluet connection. This material comes from the book,
Historical Traditions and Facts relating to Newport and Caerleon, Pt.
1 (1880):
http://books.google.com/books?id=P3cHAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA2-PA126&dq=%22John+Bluet%22
The 1297 intenture between Sir John Bluet and William Malet is also
discussed by Peter Coss in his book, The Origins of the English
Gentry:
William Martel is likewise named in a record dated 1300 as Sir John
Bluet's valet in the book, Liber quotidianus contrarotulatoris
garderobae, pg. 174:
http://books.google.com/books?id=C4QPAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA174&dq=John+Bluet+Martel
Sir John Bluet's will was subsequently proved 9 August 1316 by his
brother, Ralph Bluet, and by William Martel.
http://books.google.com/books?id=h-YTAAAAIAAJ&dq=John+Bluet+Martel&q=John+Bluet&pgis=1#search
It's nice how it all dovetails together.
kar...@aol.com
> > families - perhaps rather than "it seems quite possible" above, it
> > would be safer to embark on further research after this particular
> > genealogical Bong tree (preferably in a beautiful pea-green boat with
> > Brandon as feline companion) from the premise that "it seems not
> > impossible".
>
> omnipresent "damp squib.''
Hello group,
I don't know what a Bong tree is, but I bet it is something to
behold. Now to add a little of what I have found since I seem to have
started all this.
The following link is to the totally searchable Calendar of
Patent Rolls, this is a project of Professor G.R. Boynton and the
Univ. of Iowa Library. I have located an interesting grant on this
site which may add some support to the Monthermer/Bluet discussion.
Click here: Introduction Search Calendar Patent Rolls
The grant is as follows, "Calander of Patent Rolls, Edw. I,
Vol III, p. 534", date 1300, Sept. 20, at Rose Castle.
"Grant to John Bluet, that neither he, his heirs, nor his
executors shall be molested by reason of his having been one of the
pledges for the debts of Joan, Countess of Gloucester and Hertford,
the kings daughter, who is bound to the king in 8,000 marks to have
again her goods which for certain causes he had taken into his hands,
and also for part of the debts wherein Gilbert, earl of Gloucester and
Hertford, sometime her husband, was bound to the king in his
lifetime. By K."
As this grant shows, there was a connection of some sort between
John Bluet and Joan, Countess of Gloucester and Herford, or he would
not have been standing surity for her. What that connection was I do
not know, but I do find it interesting and hope the rest of the group
finds it just as interesting.
Cheers,
Karen
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179842539.9...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> families - perhaps rather than "it seems quite possible" above, it
>> would be safer to embark on further research after this particular
>> genealogical Bong tree (preferably in a beautiful pea-green boat with
>> Brandon as feline companion) from the premise that "it seems not
>> impossible".
>
Not at all - do you not even comprehend the difference between "Dorothy
Parker" herself and the "wannabe-Dorothy-Parker school" that you imitate?
Moreover, sgm is not a competion where anything is supposed to be better
than something quite different.
> More like the omnipresent "damp squib.''
Again, not at all - because the reference to 'The Owl and the Pussycat' is
perfectly apposite for a mutual admiration society of two, yourself and
Richardson, and for his nonsensical idea that if only he does some further
research he might uncover the origins of a notable figure that generations
of real scholars have failed to pin down. Refresh your memory here
http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/ns/pussy.html
Peter Stewart
al...@mindspring.com
I find that Sir John
> Bluet ["domini Johannis Bluet"] presented to the church of Silchester,
> Hampshire in 1302 [Reference: John de Pontissara, Winchester
> Registers, Pt. 2 (Surrey Rec. Soc. No. IV) (1915): 146]. Sir John
> Bluet was survived by a younger second wife, Eleanor, who was
> previously the wife of a Bartholomew de Brianzon. This Bartholomew de
> Brianzon was himself a descendant of the later Counts of Eu, as
> indicated by VCH Essex.
snip
KEI says Eleanor was wife of his son Sir William de Brianzon, I think:
Knights of Edward I Harleian Society Pub' 1929 Rev' C Moor.
BRIANZUN Sir BARTHOLOMEW de knight.
(BRIANUN). BRIENCON). Gyrony of 12 argent and azure (Charles
Deering).Gyrony of'8 azure
and argent (Camden). Holds 1 knights fee at W.Thurrok Essex 3 June
1262
and 29 November 1268 (PR & Court R). Protection of 4 years going on
crusade to the
Holly Lands with the king and prince Edward, 16 July 1270 (P R).
Witnesses charter John de Burgo 9 February 1271 · d October 1273
(Court R).
Commissioner in Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Middlesex and London 11 October
1274 and later.
Assessor etc of subsidy Essex and Hertfordshire 24 October 1275 (PR &
CR). Gifts
3 tuns of wine 4 January 1278. Jas' de Victor quitclaims to him lands
in
Cestreshams and Agmodesham 22 February 1281 (CR). Has to suit with
Dean and Chapter of
St Pauls 4 October 1281 (PR). Grant of market and fair at Avillers and
free
warren at Faumbrigg Essex and Chesham Bucks 15 April 1286 (CR).
Protection going overseas with the king, 26 April 1286 (PR). Died 25
November
1286 holding mess at Cetesham as half knights fee , manors of Avvelers
1 fee end
Kersirg, both inheritance of his wife JOAN and W.Thurrok 1k fee
leaving son and
heir WILLIAM, 3 last Mich (Inq). Livery to JOAN her manors of Avelers
and Cressing
2 March 1287. She has not remarried 24 January 1290 and is dead 20
July 1305.
Livery to son and heir WILLIAM (CR).
BRIANCON Sir WILLIAM de knight. As having lands in Essex enrolled for
defence of coast
1296 (PW) BRIANCON, WILLIAM de , aged 3 in 1286 son and heir of Sir
BARTH' and JOAN de
BRIANCON (Inq).
Grant of his marriage to John de Weston 8 January 1291 (PR). Order to
replevy to
him his lands taken for default. 26 May 1309 (CR). Summoned ,to serve
against the
Scots 18 June 1310 (PW). Dead 10 November 1310 (FR) holding manors of
S.Famburg,
W,Thurrok and Alvievly lands at Wakering and Bekkoney Essex and
Chestrsham Bucks
and leaving brother and heir JOHN, 24 and widow ELEANOR to whom dower
2 April
1311 (Inq & FR). Qualified for knighthood.
BRIANCON Sir JOHN de knight (BRYANZON). Gerone de argent de azure
(Parl).
Aged 24 brother and heir of WILLIAM de BRIANCON 1310 (Inq). Livery at
his lands
20 January 1311 (FR). Summoned to serve against the Scots 1314 (PW).
Dead 8 May
1316 holding manors of Alvelhele, W.Thurrock and Thorndon Essex and
leaving widow
ELIZABETH and son and heir JOHN, (Inq). ELIZABETH married John Joce 6
November 1319
(Inq).
JOHN de BRIANZON of Canewdon Essex was dead 28 February 1321 holding
lands there of the
heir of JOHN de BRIANCON of W.Thurrock and leaving widow AMICE and son
and heir
BARTHOLOMEW, 7& a half (Inq).
.
CR= Close Roll PR= Patent Roll FR= Fine Roll
PW= Parliamentary Roll Cart = Charter Roll
This may be incorrect.
Doug Smith
kar...@aol.com
> > would be safer to embark on further research after this particular
> > genealogical Bong tree (preferably in a beautiful pea-green boat with
> > Brandon as feline companion) from the premise that "it seems not
> > impossible".
>
> omnipresent "damp squib.''
Hello John and everyone else interested in this Bluet puzzle, I
appreciate each and every comment and all the helpful information that
is being shared. Thank you.
I have another find to share, it is the following web site for the
Calendar of Patent Rolls and I draw your particular attention to yet
another Bluet mention.
The following link is to the totally searchable Calendar of Patent
Rolls, this is a project of Professor G.R. Boynton and the Univ. of
Iowa Library. I have located an interesting grant on this site which
may add some support to the Monthermer/Bluet discussion.
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/search.html
The grant is as follows, "Calander of Patent Rolls, Edw. I, Vol III,
p. 534", date 1300, Sept. 20, at Rose Castle.
"Grant to John Bluet, that neither he, his heirs, nor his executors
shall be molested by reason of his having been one of the pledges for
the debts of Joan, countess of Gloucester and Hertford, the kings
daughter, who is bound to the king in 8,000 marks to have again her
goods which for certain causes he had taken into his hands, and also
for part of the debts wherein Gilbert, earl of Gloucester and
Hertford, sometime her husband, was bound to the king in his
lifetime. By K."
Cheers,
Karen
mj...@btinternet.com
> Hello Everyone ~
>
> Here is a link to an interesting discussion about Joan of England's
> two husbands, Earl Gilbert de Clare and Earl Ralph de Monthermer,
> followed by discussion of an indenture dated 1297 between Sir John
> Bluet, of Silchester, Hampshire and William Martel. Again, we find
> the Monthermer-Bluet connection. This material comes from the book,
> Historical Traditions and Facts relating to Newport and Caerleon, Pt.
> 1 (1880):
>
>
> The 1297 intenture between Sir John Bluet and William Malet is also
> discussed by Peter Coss in his book, The Origins of the English
> Gentry:
>
>
> William Martel is likewise named in a record dated 1300 as Sir John
> Bluet's valet in the book, Liber quotidianus contrarotulatoris
> garderobae, pg. 174:
>
>
> Sir John Bluet's will was subsequently proved 9 August 1316 by his
> brother, Ralph Bluet, and by William Martel.
>
>
> It's nice how it all dovetails together.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Douglas
I am not sure why four documents discussing the same thing (ie William
Martel served John Bluet) should be expected to do otherwise than
dovetail together? Furthermore, none of these documents links Bluet
(or Martel) with Monthermer - the first one discusses Monthermer and
then subsequently, but not consequently, moves on to Bluet - so there
is no obvious reason for believing that they shed any light on the
ostensible subject of this thread. Am I missing something, or are
these just random Google Books references?
Best wishes, Michael
Douglas Richardson
Thanks for sharing this information with the newsgroup. Much
appreciated.
This reference in the Patent Rolls may also be cited as:
Cal. Patent Rolls, 1292-1301 (1895): 534.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart
"Larsy" <ravinma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179946441....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> Not at all - do you not even comprehend the difference between "Dorothy
>> Parker" herself and the "wannabe-Dorothy-Parker school" that you imitate?
>> Moreover, sgm is not a competion where anything is supposed to be better
>> than something quite different.
>
> but prefer her to the "wannabe" school, which in turn you prefer to
> me.
More incomprehension - Dorothy Parker had a minor genius for insulting, and
at her best can be very entertaining. Her imitators are much less so, if at
all, and in turn their pale imitators - like yourself - are invariably
lacklustre.
> However, I'm saying that you're worse than all three of us. For a
> joke to be funny it has to be comprehensible, which yours was not.
> Other than a vague reference to the Owl & Pussycat, it made no sense
> at all.
The reference was not vague, and it was apposite: if you don't recognise
your ludicrous mutual admiration with Richardson and realise that you are
both laughing-stocks to many here, figures of nonsensical fun on a good day,
then you must have even less self-awareness than you have talent for
controversy.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> I'm devastated, just devastated, by this blistering critique.
Campy sarcasm doesn't cut it either.
If you have no answer, try making none.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
I suggest you take your personal feud to private e-mail and spare the
rest of us the dreary repetition of inappropriate off topic remarks.
This thread is about the origins and family of Earl Ralph de
Monthermer. If anyone has anything pertinent to share on that topic,
by all means, please do so. Otherwise, refrain from posting to this
thread. Thank you.
Peter Stewart
>> Campy sarcasm doesn't cut it either.
>
> deep).
The term "camp" for a written statement has of course nothing whatever to do
with vocal qualities - it means theatrically affected and vampish. Beatrice
Arthur could be high-camp with a voice probably as loud and deep as yours.
>> If you have no answer, try making none.
>
> Do you really expect people to start taking your orders on the
> newsgroup, any more than they would in everyday life?
Once again you can't interpret plain words - "try making none" is a
suggestion, for your own good and everyone else's, not an order.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
>> Beatrice Arthur could be high-camp with a voice probably as loud and deep
>> as yours.
>
So what? The loud and deep voice is not arguable, anyone who has heard her
speak must know that. Her other qualities have nothing to do with my point,
or with this thread.
<snip>
> I don't think my postings are exactly campy--more at impertinent,
> cheeky, something-Peter-Stewart-doesn't like.
Peter Stewart didn't say your "postings are exactly campy" - on this
occasion I said a particular remark was, and I have probably said the same
about other cop-out lines of sarcastic exaggeration or misrepresentation
before.
If you need remedial help with your reading and comprehension skills, the
(high or low) campus you work on may provide it.
Peter Stewart
Tony Pratt
processes of those concerned is any of this really relevant? If not
can't you do it by email so the rest of us don't have to read it, and
if it is will someone please point out what the relevance is as I
can't see it? I'm here for the info and the discussions not to hear
two or three people engage in mutual backstabbing. Please cut it out.
On a more useful note can I mention that the Wiltshire Bluet line was
not, actually, based at the manor of Lacock, but at the manor of
Lackham. To be sure they are neighbouring manors, but if you look for
Lacock in the records you are not likely to find all that are related
to the Bluet family. I know it's very picky of me, but Lackham
deserves the Bluet name, not Lacock. ( and yes, I admit I've got a
vested interest in this, having been researching the Lackham history
for nearly a decade, but that doesn't invalidate my point, lol.)
Thanks to everyone for the interesting discussions, we are learning
more and more as time goes on and the suggestions being made will be
clarified in time. I would, however, suggest that it is important
that suppositions should be raised as such, not as established facts,
no matter how very very nice it would be if they are true!
Keep digging all , its good stuff
Tony Pratt
Researcher, Lackham Museum of Agriculture and Rural Life Trust
On May 23, 7:54 pm, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Not at all - do you not even comprehend the difference between "Dorothy
> > Parker" herself and the "wannabe-Dorothy-Parker school" that you imitate?
> > Moreover, sgm is not a competion where anything is supposed to be better
> > than something quite different.
>
> I comprehend that you do not care for Dorothy Parker all that much,
> but prefer her to the "wannabe" school, which in turn you prefer to
> me.
>
Peter Stewart
"Tony Pratt" <chetw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180201022.4...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Although mildy interesting in that it shows something about the mental
> processes of those concerned is any of this really relevant?
Yes it is. I take almost the opposite view from yours - I think the
exchanges between Brandon and me are not even mildly interesting, they are
indeed relentlessly tedious, but in the long run they are in the best
interests of the newsgroup.
> If not can't you do it by email
No we can't, as I would not be fool enough to share my private email address
with Brandon.
> so the rest of us don't have to read it,
You already don't "have to read it" - if this is your preference, just don't
open messages from John Brandon, Lars Friedan or Peter Stewart. It really is
that easy to manage, all on your own.
> and if it is will someone please point out what the relevance is as I
> can't see it?
The relevance is not directly to medieval genealogy, of course, but instead
to the tenor of current discussions and the conduct of newsgroup
participants in future.
SGM has been infested with trouble-makers at different times, and experience
has shown that these people can & will take up residence with their habits
getting worse over time if they meet with a tolerant - or even indulgent -
reception here. (One of these bad habits, by the way, is that of
cross-posting as you did in the message I am responding to, without the need
to broadcast this into another forum.)
If you cast your mind back over the recent past, you may note that one
outstanding nuisance who blustered and bullied people here for years has
ceased to be a daily presence. That did not happen by accident - he finally
met with determined & sustained resistance, and was shown up as flatly wrong
and quite ignorant in matters on which he had puffed himself to readers for
years. All the while others had responded to him only fitfully, if at all,
for the most part meekly curling their lips in silent disgust wishing he
would disappear. He didn't. Then a few people, with myself taking most of
the burden, decided that he should no longer get away with it - and where is
he now? SGM is far the better for his comparative discipline these days, in
much less frequent incursions here.
Brandon might improve too - by using his undoubted brains and abilities in
more mature and sensible ways, or simply by learning to shut up. But if this
can come about, as promised by his recent episode of self-pity and resolve
to leave, it will only be when he is sufficiently chastened by more of the
same unremitting criticism that brought him to that brief loss of
self-confidence in the first place.
Then SGM will be a better place, at least until the next pest comes along.
You can't get rid of them by hopes and you can't moderate their behaviour by
silent disdain.
Also, the "plague on both your houses" attitude, that often does get
expressed here by people who don't speak out against the initial offense, is
a dirt-cheap cop-out.
Peter Stewart
jim...@aol.com
This is enough of the scurilous attacks on people. If one checks the archives of this newsgroup one can see other attacks by Peter Stewart on newsgroup members. Peter needs to learn the diplomacy and tact of John Ravilious and Michael A-R.
Instead of posting something useful he resorts to attacks on John and others.
Such an abrasive personality is not needed in this newsgroup.
Jim Malone
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sat, 26 May 2007 6:14 pm
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Clue to Origin of Ralph de Monthermer, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford
Tony Pratt" <chetw...@aol.com> wrote in message
ews:1180201022.4...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Although mildy interesting in that it shows something about the mental
processes of those concerned is any of this really relevant?
Yes it is. I take almost the opposite view from yours - I think the
xchanges between Brandon and me are not even mildly interesting, they are
ndeed relentlessly tedious, but in the long run they are in the best
nterests of the newsgroup.
> If not can't you do it by email
No we can't, as I would not be fool enough to share my private email address
ith Brandon.
> so the rest of us don't have to read it,
You already don't "have to read it" - if this is your preference, just don't
pen messages from John Brandon, Lars Friedan or Peter Stewart. It really is
hat easy to manage, all on your own.
> and if it is will someone please point out what the relevance is as I
can't see it?
The relevance is not directly to medieval genealogy, of course, but instead
o the tenor of current discussions and the conduct of newsgroup
articipants in future.
SGM has been infested with trouble-makers at different times, and experience
as shown that these people can & will take up residence with their habits
etting worse over time if they meet with a tolerant - or even indulgent -
eception here. (One of these bad habits, by the way, is that of
ross-posting as you did in the message I am responding to, without the need
o broadcast this into another forum.)
If you cast your mind back over the recent past, you may note that one
utstanding nuisance who blustered and bullied people here for years has
eased to be a daily presence. That did not happen by accident - he finally
et with determined & sustained resistance, and was shown up as flatly wrong
nd quite ignorant in matters on which he had puffed himself to readers for
ears. All the while others had responded to him only fitfully, if at all,
or the most part meekly curling their lips in silent disgust wishing he
ould disappear. He didn't. Then a few people, with myself taking most of
he burden, decided that he should no longer get away with it - and where is
e now? SGM is far the better for his comparative discipline these days, in
uch less frequent incursions here.
Brandon might improve too - by using his undoubted brains and abilities in
ore mature and sensible ways, or simply by learning to shut up. But if this
an come about, as promised by his recent episode of self-pity and resolve
o leave, it will only be when he is sufficiently chastened by more of the
ame unremitting criticism that brought him to that brief loss of
elf-confidence in the first place.
Then SGM will be a better place, at least until the next pest comes along.
ou can't get rid of them by hopes and you can't moderate their behaviour by
ilent disdain.
Also, the "plague on both your houses" attitude, that often does get
xpressed here by people who don't speak out against the initial offense, is
dirt-cheap cop-out.
Peter Stewart
------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Leo van de Pas
I think it is needed, as some people do not react to polite or gentle
prodding to do the right thing. Peter Stewart, with some people, can be
sharp but ususally they deserve it.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <jim...@aol.com>
To: <p_m_s...@msn.com>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Clue to Origin of Ralph de Monthermer, Earl
ofGloucester and Hertford
> Peter,
>
> This is enough of the scurilous attacks on people. If one checks the
> archives of this newsgroup one can see other attacks by Peter Stewart on
> newsgroup members. Peter needs to learn the diplomacy and tact of John
> Ravilious and Michael A-R.
>
> Instead of posting something useful he resorts to attacks on John and
> others.
>
> Such an abrasive personality is not needed in this newsgroup.
>
> Jim Malone
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com>
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Sent: Sat, 26 May 2007 6:14 pm
> Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Clue to Origin of Ralph de Monthermer, Earl of
> Gloucester and Hertford
>
>
>
>
> Tony Pratt" <chetw...@aol.com> wrote in message
> ews:1180201022.4...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Although mildy interesting in that it shows something about the mental
> processes of those concerned is any of this really relevant?
> Yes it is. I take almost the opposite view from yours - I think the
> xchanges between Brandon and me are not even mildly interesting, they are
> ndeed relentlessly tedious, but in the long run they are in the best
> nterests of the newsgroup.
>> If not can't you do it by email
> No we can't, as I would not be fool enough to share my private email
> address
> ith Brandon.
>> so the rest of us don't have to read it,
> You already don't "have to read it" - if this is your preference, just
> don't
> pen messages from John Brandon, Lars Friedan or Peter Stewart. It really
> is
> hat easy to manage, all on your own.
>> and if it is will someone please point out what the relevance is as I
> can't see it?
> The relevance is not directly to medieval genealogy, of course, but
> instead
> o the tenor of current discussions and the conduct of newsgroup
> articipants in future.
> SGM has been infested with trouble-makers at different times, and
> experience
> as shown that these people can & will take up residence with their habits
> etting worse over time if they meet with a tolerant - or even indulgent -
> eception here. (One of these bad habits, by the way, is that of
> ross-posting as you did in the message I am responding to, without the
> need
> o broadcast this into another forum.)
> If you cast your mind back over the recent past, you may note that one
> utstanding nuisance who blustered and bullied people here for years has
> eased to be a daily presence. That did not happen by accident - he finally
> et with determined & sustained resistance, and was shown up as flatly
> wrong
> nd quite ignorant in matters on which he had puffed himself to readers for
> ears. All the while others had responded to him only fitfully, if at all,
> or the most part meekly curling their lips in silent disgust wishing he
> ould disappear. He didn't. Then a few people, with myself taking most of
> he burden, decided that he should no longer get away with it - and where
> is
> e now? SGM is far the better for his comparative discipline these days, in
> uch less frequent incursions here.
> Brandon might improve too - by using his undoubted brains and abilities in
> ore mature and sensible ways, or simply by learning to shut up. But if
> this
> an come about, as promised by his recent episode of self-pity and resolve
> o leave, it will only be when he is sufficiently chastened by more of the
> ame unremitting criticism that brought him to that brief loss of
> elf-confidence in the first place.
> Then SGM will be a better place, at least until the next pest comes along.
> ou can't get rid of them by hopes and you can't moderate their behaviour
> by
> ilent disdain.
> Also, the "plague on both your houses" attitude, that often does get
> xpressed here by people who don't speak out against the initial offense,
> is
> dirt-cheap cop-out.
> Peter Stewart
>
>
> ------------------------------
> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
> of
> he message
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
> from AOL at AOL.com.
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
Peter Stewart
> Peter,
>
> This is enough of the scurilous attacks on people. If one checks
> the archives of this newsgroup one can see other attacks by Peter
> Stewart on newsgroup members.
If one has checked the archives, one should be able to specify these
attacks and name these newsgroup members. Please do so. Also, please
clarify the meaning that you intend to convey by use of the word
"scurrilous" - to me this suggests some kind of indecency or gross
unfairness, something that an accuser who is not being scurrilous
himself would surely feel bound to substantiate.
> Peter needs to learn the diplomacy and tact of John Ravilious and Michael
> A-R.
Peter is not even remotely trying to be diplomatic or tactful about
Brandon.
> Instead of posting something useful he resorts to attacks on John and others.
If you wish to defend John Brandon's conduct here, by all means go
ahead - but this looks like a mealy-mouthed avoidance of any question
about his offenses. You might even discover when you check your facts
that I post much more useful medieval genealogy that he does, and that
no other subject (including him) deflects me from this when I have
something to add.
> Such an abrasive personality is not needed in this newsgroup.
No-one is "needed" in an internet newsgroup, that can go on with a
whole new audience and contributors if all of us choose to leave.
According to the Google profile for the poster identified as Jim
Malone, you have made two previous posts to SGM: on 15 March you wrote
(in the thread "Some refs to new England"):
> I have found this newsgroup quite useful and am bothered by the attacks
> being sent back and forth. Take a posting as it is. If it does work in your
> research use it. It not, just delete it.
Not following you own advice two months later....If you can't help
opening and reading my posts, that is your affair - but you will be as
unrewarded in this as in your other post, of 29 April, seeking help
with your Weston research.
My allegedly "abrasive personality" (an extraordinary call from
someone who knows nothing beyond one part of my daily activities, and
who pretends to want less personal attacks here anyway) is not exactly
indiscriminate in choosing targets, something else you might note if
you actually "check the archive".
As for Brandon's idea that I "chased away" Chris Phillips, I remind
him and the rest of the newsgroup that nothing is keeping Phillips
from rejoining SGM except his own reluctance to admit that he was
wrong about Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands database, both in general
and on specific points of the advertised revisions. He set a great
deal of his store of credibility on defending a hunch, that turned out
to be mistaken: having announced that he would verify his hopeful
assertions with Cawley and report back, he has never been heard from
since. To make out that this is entirely my fault is stretching and
twisting the truth, even by Brandon's standards of wishful thinking.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> Dear Jim,
>
> I think it is needed, as some people do not react to polite or gentle
> prodding to do the right thing. Peter Stewart, with some people, can be
> sharp but ususally they deserve it.
Thank you, Leo. Apart from stating my views on people who abuse,
deceive or mislead the newsroup, I try to speak up in defense of
people who are attacked here on specious grounds or without deserving
it.
And, of course, since defending oneself is an invidious task at the
best of times, I always appreciate the same in return.
Peter Stewart
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
After consulting ALL your posts I can't possibly conceive on what
authority you assert what is needed or not needed in this newsgroup.
About what Peter Stewart "needs to learn" you - or anyone else - is
entitled to an opinion but its public expression, under the
circunstances, was only a regretable show of bad manners and self
convincement.
I do regret that Chris Phillips is gone for the moment and wish him
back but I am not repentant for what I then wrote and may help him
leave. What I am repentant is for remain silent sometime ago and so
help Peter Stewart take the decision to leave for long months. And I
think that this newsgroup does need Peter Stewart.
Best regards,
Francisco
jim...@aol.com escreveu:
mj...@btinternet.com
> Peter,
>
> This is enough of the scurilous attacks on people. If one checks the archives of this newsgroup one can see other attacks by Peter Stewart on newsgroup members. Peter needs to learn the diplomacy and tact of John Ravilious and Michael A-R.
>
> Instead of posting something useful he resorts to attacks on John and others.
>
> Such an abrasive personality is not needed in this newsgroup.
>
> Jim Malone
Dear Jim
I'm afraid I must agree with Peter on this one. Perhaps you have
somehow missed the many, many useful, helpful posts he has
contributed, especially in his own fields of (considerable) expertise,
over many years. His "attacks" on John Brandon are invariably
responses to off-topic, abusive items from that poster, who now makes
little effort to be other than a provocative troll; furthermore,
Peter's motivation is clearly the welfare of this newsgroup (which
incidentally is not served by endorsing the poster whose every
contribution now is grossly negative). I may not share Peter's style,
nor his determination, but I admire and support his stance.
Kind regards, Michael
Peter Stewart
Posting gushes of off-topic stuff is another favourite pastime of these
nuisances. Most are not desperate enough to do both in the same online
session, as Brandon has pitifully done today.
Just yesterday he was explicitly acknowledging the very thing he now
pretends to find "too funny".
But the timing speaks for itself, with no need for anyone's subjective
agreement - look into the archive. If Brandon wants to offer an alternative
explanation for the plain facts, that we can verify in the same simple way,
he can go right ahead.
How many times will he need to be told, I wonder, that his mere assertions
and wishful thinking count for nothing here?
Peter Stewart
"Larsy" <ravinma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180360797....@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> "Then a few people, with myself taking most of the burden, decided
> that he should no longer get away with it - and where is he now? SGM
> is far the better for his comparative discipline these days, in much
> less frequent incursions here."
>
> I was LMAO reading this -- what is it even talking about?
>
> Presumably the offender is DSH, but I doubt he would agree he left
> because of the efforts of PMS. "With myself taking most of the
> burden" ... too funny.
>
Peter Stewart
> > But the timing speaks for itself, with no need for anyone's subjective
> > agreement - look into the archive. If Brandon wants to offer an alternative
> > explanation for the plain facts, that we can verify in the same simple way,
> > he can go right ahead.
>
> DSH for a long period of time--I wouldn't call it anything noble, like
> a planned campaign with you shouldering "most of the burden."
>
> He left because he was bored, or for whatever reason. I don't find
> any particular cause-and-effect between your postings and his
> departure.
>
> Stop giving yourself airs about this.
There are no "airs" to be had over it, I am just stating the facts.
Do you produce words just for the sake of sounding off, feeling no
obligation at all to know what you are talking about?
And "bored" my foot - Spencer is still posting in exactly the same
behaviour pattern to his other newsgroups as he demonstrated here for
years.
In SGM he ran into exposure of his almost total ignorance of Latin, as
well as his inadequacy in logic when the going suddenly got tougher,
that led him to make the fundamental error of trying to cosy up to
Richardson, on the quite inappropriate principle of "my enemy's enemy
is my friend". Knowing that the SGM archive contains a rich store of
his past criticisms of Richardson, very accurate and easily quotable,
he understood that he had painted himself into a tight corner in this
forum, and departed. As I said, the timing speaks for itself. Spencer
may be a difficult cuss, largely to his own detriment, but he is not a
natural hypocrite.
So the direct "credit" really belongs to Richardson, for being such an
inveterate fool that no intelligent person can sustain an attempt to
argue in his favour. Spencer, whatever else people think of him, is
more than smart enough to recognise this, and the prickly kind of
accountability he will face if he should ever come back.
Brandon, on the other hand, does not have the same elementary smarts
about him, persisting in his bad habits here when everyone else can
plainly see he is on a hiding to nothing.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180447469.4...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> There are no "airs" to be had over it, I am just stating the facts.
>
Another baseless assertion on your part - I repeat, there is nothing
"important" about this. Trolls like yourself are a nuisance, but not of any
moment. Dealing with them is a chore, not a "noble campaign" or a matter for
any kind of pride - these are your own cheap-jack fantasies projected onto
me.
>> about him, persisting in his bad habits here when everyone else can
>> plainly see he is on a hiding to nothing.
>
> I had never heard this expression--"on a hiding to nothing"--but it
> seems it must have something to do with being flayed to pieces or
> flayed apart.
Nothing so extreme - it is a common enough phrase that most people would
know & that you could easily have found for yourself with a Google search
that you are so fond of boring us with when it suits you, meaning "a
situation in which a favourable outcome is impossible", see
http://www.allwords.com/word-be%20on%20a%20hiding%20to%20nothing.html
> What unpleasant/ violent fantasies you have. What a strange little
> man you must be.
Another of your fantasies: "little" is pure imagination, as baseless and
self-serving to a deformed ego as your other opinions.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> > Nothing so extreme - it is a common enough phrase that most people would
>
> before.
So you thought it appropriate to invent your own definition and then
blame me for it.....
> > Another of your fantasies: "little" is pure imagination, as baseless and
> > self-serving to a deformed ego as your other opinions.
>
> Sort of like some of yours, eh ("troll," "nuisance," "baseless," "self-
> serving," "deformed")? How many unpleasant words can you fit into a
> single sentence?
Mercifully nothing from you is "sort of like" anything from me. In
this case, you are spluttering nonsense - all of those words were put
into a single sentence ONLY BY YOU, not be me. If you can't refute the
terms in their proper context, mischaracterising them is a feeble
attempt at retaliation that can do you no good at all.
> Anyway, this is the last response I'll be making to you. See you,
> wouldn't want to be you.
We have seen before how little your resolutions to shut up can be
trusted.
Peter Stewart
Ian Goddard
> I had never heard this expression--"on a hiding to nothing"--but it
Common expression in N Ireland & maybe elsewhere.
Etymology: uncertain.
Meaning: "expending a great deal of effort with no prospect of achieving
anything".
--
Ian Goddard
Hotmail is for the benefit of spammers. The email address that I actually
read is igoddard and that's at nildram dot co dot uk
Ian Goddard
> John Brandon wrote:
>
>
>> I had never heard this expression--"on a hiding to nothing"--but it
>
> Common expression in N Ireland & maybe elsewhere.
>
> Etymology: uncertain.
>
> Meaning: "expending a great deal of effort with no prospect of achieving
> anything".
>
Chambers dictionary gives "hide" as a form of past tense of the verb "hie",
to hasten, so the meaning of "on a hiding" is "in a hurry".
Pedants'r'Us
Peter Stewart
> > Chambers dictionary gives "hide" as a form of past tense of the verb "hie",
> > to hasten, so the meaning of "on a hiding" is "in a hurry".
>
> 'hiding to nothing' means 'a thrashing to bits.'"
>
> http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/9/messages/50.html
Half right: "hiding" does literally mean "thrashing" in the expression
"hiding to nothing", but not by any means a "thrashing to bits" and
not from the victim's standpoint in the first place.
A report, by someone identified only as "ESC", of Norman Schur's
definition published in New York is an odd sort of authority to take
from one internet discussion forum and then assert as fact on another
about a British colloquialism.
The expressioni is traced by the OED only back as far as 1905, so it
is most unlikely that "hiding" comes from the verb "to hie" (hasten)
rather than from the sporting term common from the late 19th century,
for a whipping. The meaning is "faced with a situation in which any
outcome would be unfavourable or in which success is impossible",
apparently from horseracing wher a favourite is expected to win easily
"so that one gains no credit from victory, and is disgraced by
defeat".
However, Brandon's initial mistake was to ignore the preposition. "On
a hiding" in this case means "[engaged] on a hiding", i.e. the jockey,
rather than "on [the receiving end of] a hiding", i.e the horse. The
animal is "under" the whip, not "on" it. British sporting metaphors
are usually from the human point of view, not literally from the
horse's mouth. And of course racehorses are not "thrashed to bits", at
least in public, anyway.
Peter Stewart
Ian Goddard
The 1905 reference is to
http://www.amazon.com/Mop-Fair-M-Binstead/dp/B000H3S13S/ref=sr_1_2/105-1995400-7819616?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180735808&sr=1-2