Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Beccles
WJhonson
One more thing. Since we know that Robert Peck (later) of Beccles was an adult by 1537, his purported father Henry *could not be* the son of Richard Peck, Esq of Wakefield by his wife Alice Middleton.
The reason now is chronological. Henry would have to be older than Richard's heir John Peck who inherited Wakefield and married Joan Anne.
So now, if we seek to maintain the connection at all, we need to put Henry back another generation, that is as a younger son of Richard Peck of Wakefield, by his wife Joan Harrington.
Will Johnson
WJhonson
The authors draw conclusions on age of participants, places of residence,
interpretation of the word "neve" in texts which often are interpreted either as "nephew"
or "grandson," by them and others, without redressing the entire text with this questionable
translation, and dismiss a pedigree in the British Museum in its totality as "fraudulent"
when it fact it is based on two previous and accepted *Visitations.* >>
-----------------------------
Bill you still have it in your head that Visitations are "factual". They are not. They are evidence just like anything else. They have no higher value, than any other evidence. In fact, on generations several times removed *from the contributor* they have much *less* value than other evidence. How many people can accurately remember the names of all their great-grand-aunts ? Not many.
You need to understand that many times, visitations are merely writen down from what one person tells another, *not* from searches in documents, or verification of the points.
Sometimes other evidence, upholds the visitation pedigree, sometimes it does not.
Will Johnson
WJhonson
By the way, the fact that he is making a deposition in 1537 tells us that he was an adult by that time.
If his purported father Henry died *in* 1525, that could neatly explain why Robert moved to Beccles. I.E. that he was now either poorer, or richer, after his father's death, so he was either driven out, or bought himself a nicer place.
Which again goes back to my point that you need to follow what properties were owned by Henry his purported father, and how they were disposed.
Will Johnson
Bill Arnold
I will raise the ante. Assuming (a big assumption) that these two or three generations in the
16th century TOLD THE TRUTH and dealt with English customs (or laws: I will let you, and
gen-medieval experts rule!) correctly, then that would be the case. But what if: Robert Peck
of Beccles were the illegitimate or legitimate son of John Peck of Wakefield by an earlier wife
and confirms the British Museum pedigree of Pecks?
Custom would dictate that the *Visitations* were part true and part lie. But, then is the
British Museum pedigree of Peck really a forgery, or maybe does it speak more to the truth?
After all, it comes from the College of Heralds, was signed, dated, etc.?
I agree with your reasoning but I am unsure that the Visitations, both of them cited by the
authors of the 1930s NEHGSR articles, or the British Museum pedigree of Peck should be
dismissed or accepted, one, two or three? The motive to lie in the former was as applicable
as the motive to lie in the latter, or the final pedigree much maligned.
It makes more sense to me to investigate anew from 2007 on such an able forum as this
the totality of the question:
Who were the ancestors of Robert Peck of Beccles, who it now appears was NOT born in
Beccles as we have been led to believe by all previous pronouncements.
Bill
***************************
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Nathaniel Taylor
Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Indeed.
>
> I will raise the ante. Assuming (a big assumption) that these two or three
> generations in the
> 16th century TOLD THE TRUTH and dealt with English customs (or laws: I will
> let you, and
> gen-medieval experts rule!) correctly, then that would be the case. But what
> if: Robert Peck
> of Beccles were the illegitimate or legitimate son of John Peck of Wakefield
> by an earlier wife
> and confirms the British Museum pedigree of Pecks?
>
> Custom would dictate that the *Visitations* were part true and part lie.
> But, then is the
> British Museum pedigree of Peck really a forgery, or maybe does it speak more
> to the truth?
> After all, it comes from the College of Heralds, was signed, dated, etc.?
The pedigree printed by S. Allyn Peck should be assumed to be a complete
fabrication by a known nineteenth-century forger, made to impress a
naive American client, until proved otherwise. This is a known MO. The
attestation and signature of the herald are most likely forged.
> I agree with your reasoning but I am unsure that the Visitations, both of
> them cited by the
> authors of the 1930s NEHGSR articles, or the British Museum pedigree of Peck
> should be
> dismissed or accepted, one, two or three? The motive to lie in the former
> was as applicable
> as the motive to lie in the latter, or the final pedigree much maligned.
The Visitation pedigrees are much more modest in their claims. The one
which makes more extravagant claims, and which only surfaced at the
hands of a known forger, for a naive American client, is the one much
more seriously in doubt. That is not to say Visitation pedigrees are
entirely accurate. But for the most part, Visitation pedigrees are
authentic manuscripts of the period they purport to date from, and (for
the most part) they represent good faith efforts by specific informants
to recount their ancestries to some reasonably scrupulous scribe.
If you are serious, pay someone good (I recommend Chris Phillips) to
examine the physical context and provenance of the pedigree now in the
British Library, pay for good photographic copies, and attempt to make a
case based on external and internal evidence both that the pedigree
really is a genuine seventeenth-century manuscript (which I doubt), and
that the information it contains is true (though we already know it to
be false with regard to the pedigree's account of the children of John,
son of Richard Peck of Wakefield, Yorks.). Given the obvious strikes
against it, the burden of proof rests very clearly on anyone attempting
to claim either hypothesis.
> It makes more sense to me to investigate anew from 2007 on such an able forum
> as this
> the totality of the question:
>
> Who were the ancestors of Robert Peck of Beccles, who it now appears was NOT
> born in
> Beccles as we have been led to believe by all previous pronouncements.
S. Allyn Peck did NOT claim that Robert Peck (Sr.) was born at Beccles.
What YOU were led to believe by the entirely customary use of the phrase
"of Beccles" is another matter.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net/
Bill Arnold
My knowledge of language has me saying once again: communications, spoken and written,
of as misunderstood as understood. I have sent a few citations of my background: I hope
it shows you I do not say the following in a light tone: WE ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT.
In other words: dealing just with the *Visitations* as such. I KNOW that. Let me give you
a case in point: in American and Canadian record keeping, I found a death record of my
great-grandmother and the informant was her descendant and my great-grandmother's
maternal line had been erased, and only a LAST or surname entered. For four decades I
accepted that maternal line. So, you can imagine my chagrin when this year upon looking
at Canadian census records of the 1800s I found two back-to-back census records with
a DIFFERENT LAST or surname entered. What had transpired was that the MOTHER of my
great-grandmother had become widowed in her later age, and REMARRIED and ASSUMED
the LAST or surname of the STEP-father of her children. My great-grandmother and/or
her informant gave the STEP-father's LAST or surname as the name of the FATHER. It
turns out that the real FATHER was the LAST or surname BEFORE she became widowed.
TWO CENSUS RECORDS proved the error and OTHER records comfirmed this NEW knowledge
of the maternal line.
Now: back to *Visitations* as such. They are, to me, no different than census records:
as good and as true and certain as the STATEMENTS of the INFORMANTS to the Visitation
recorder. So: I am ABSOLUTELY in agreement with your thoughts, except that you must
now accept that we ARE ON THE SAME PAGE as to *Visitations.* As to how I wish to relate
all this to the crux of the matter of WHO were the ancestors of Rboert Peck of Beccles is
forthcoming. In other words: we must look at all the evidence, as you say, and I accept
that two different *Visitations* and a Peck pedigree in the British Museum library and
all other evidence must be brought to the fore, including wills, Chancery and Church
records, and anything else that might have a decisive impact on conculsions. It is my
opinion that the authors of the 1930s serialized articles in NEHGSR were biased, did not
draw always correct opinions, that there is probably additional information now available
which they did not have access to. In the final analysis: indeed, we may NOT be able
to be more conclusive than we are now. But now, according to Uah, according to rootsweb
ancestral files, and familiy trees all over the net and in books, there are ALLEGATIONS
many but few have evidence to support them.
I will march forward, as best I can, and really do appreciate your help.
Bill
******************************************
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
Bill Arnold
Or: try this scenario: if his purported father John...! I am, truthfully, investigating ALL
avenues
at this point, and no longer accept what the authors of the infamous 1930s NEHGSR wrote
as *WRIT* but will investigate further. I no longer blindly accept that John Leeke was his
grandfather: he may have been his uncle! For instance, records indicate that two daughters
of John Leek married two uncles of Robert Peck of Beccles. So: I must be open to all new
disclosures of facts in the pedigree, and normal behaviour of the times in terms of law,
church, property, marriages, divorce, whatever.
So: I assume you believe that the fact he made a deposition, under English law of the times,
means he was of the age of majority? And that would be, what? 21?
The authors concluded along similar line, that because John Leeke named him an executor
of his estate in a will drawn in 1529 that he was of the age of majority in 1529? Do you
agree with their conclusion?
As a case in point: I have read in the records that marriages were arranged with children
of two different families while the children, a boy and a girl, were 7 years of age. If age
did not matter in the case of marriage, why should it have mattered in all other cases:
depositions, wills, church, et al.? It hardly seems a fair conclusion that such a marriage
between 7 year olds could be consummated? Thus, participants before the law were
making documents based on future time, agreed?
Care to address this medieval-law question?
Bill
*****************************************
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
WJhonson
I no longer blindly accept that John Leeke was his
grandfather: he may have been his uncle! For instance, records indicate that two daughters
of John Leek married two uncles of Robert Peck of Beccles. So: I must be open to all new
disclosures of facts in the pedigree, and normal behaviour of the times in terms of law,
church, property, marriages, divorce, whatever.
So: I assume you believe that the fact he made a deposition, under English law of the times,
means he was of the age of majority? And that would be, what? 21?
The authors concluded along similar line, that because John Leeke named him an executor
of his estate in a will drawn in 1529 that he was of the age of majority in 1529? Do you
agree with their conclusion? >>
---------------------------------
Which is why, I believe a more accurate approach is: first quote EXACTLY what the primary document states, no additions, no brackets.
Then translate it.
Then add comments.
That way we can all see exactly what is said, and what isn't. So if the will of John Leeke only mentions that Robert Peck is his heir with no explanation of WHY then that should be made apparent.
If he made a deposition, then yes he was in his majority.
If he was left as an executor, then maybe yes maybe no. We've had cases mentioned here where it can be shown that an executor was not in their majority when so-named.
The question, in my mind is, were they allowed to *actually* execute while a minor (under the law) ? Or was this method, basically a way of *delaying* execution *until* a person gained their majority ?
I'm not sure. It does sound however a bit suspicious, like the testator were trying to do something a tad squirrelly.
Will Johnson
Nathaniel Taylor
Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am, truthfully, investigating ALL avenues
> at this point
Good: then you plan to engage a disinterested expert to examine the
Somerby pedigree at the British Library? Let us know.
> and no longer accept what the authors of the infamous 1930s
> NEHGSR wrote as *WRIT* but will investigate further.
S. Allyn Peck's careful, thorough work has become 'infamous' only in
your mind, because you are refusing to accept her dismissal of Somerby's
Peck pedigree.
> So: I assume you believe that the fact he made a deposition, under English
> law of the times, means he was of the age of majority? And that would
> be, what? 21?
>
> The authors
author
> concluded along similar line, that because John Leeke named him
> an executor of his estate in a will drawn in 1529 that he was of the
> age of majority in 1529? Do you agree with their conclusion?
> As a case in point: I have read in the records that marriages were arranged
> with children
> of two different families while the children, a boy and a girl, were 7 years
> of age. If age
> did not matter in the case of marriage, why should it have mattered in all
> other cases:
> depositions, wills, church, et al.? It hardly seems a fair conclusion that
> such a marriage
> between 7 year olds could be consummated? Thus, participants before the law
> were
> making documents based on future time, agreed?
Marriage was governed by canon law at this time, distinct from
common-law customs of minimum age for court appearances (which may have
been equivalent in ecclesiastical and civil courts in England). And age
did matter with marriage: seven years was the minimum for solemnizing a
marriage, though such marriages would not be consummated until puberty.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
WJhonson
I will raise the ante. Assuming (a big assumption) that these two or three generations in the
16th century TOLD THE TRUTH and dealt with English customs (or laws: I will let you, and
gen-medieval experts rule!) correctly, then that would be the case. But what if: Robert Peck
of Beccles were the illegitimate or legitimate son of John Peck of Wakefield by an earlier wife
and confirms the British Museum pedigree of Pecks? >>
Illegitimate is a possibility. But another one, which you raised obliquely would be, what if Robert Peck, later of Beccles, were a son by an earlier wife and John the heir, was not in fact the heir of his *father*, but rather the heir of his *mother*. That would explain why he'd inherit to the exclusion of Robert. I.E. the property was John's mother's property and so passed to him, as her heir.
However, like I mentioned before, You really need to *start* with a list of the properties named in the various wills, IPM, etc. So start with that.
Will Johnson
Bill Arnold
that
brother of Alice Middleton, and William Thwaites, of the related families, was the ONE who did in
fact
make marriage arrangements for Pecks after the death of Alice's husband Richard. Remember that
Alice apparently died soon after 1491 and clearly before Richard her widow died in 1516 he had
remarried the sister of his son's wife (I am NOT making this up!). It is hard keeping those
Anne's
sister straight :)
Certainly, we are not done yet on discoveries in that area of the inheritance of the Middletons
into the
Peck line, nor the Annes, as it appears the Pecks at that time and place, even in Wakefield, were
not as
flush in the pocket as the Middletons who clearly had a few Sirs and Ladies in their ranks over
several
generations. I do not know that much about the Anne families, as of yet.
As to the properties to analyze: I am in a wait-and-see mode. Bear with me, Will. I think it is
premature
at this point inasmuch as there is much fodder yet in the authors transcripts, et al., in the
serialization
articles in the 1930s in the NEHGSR. Also: it may turn out that John is the father of Robert Peck
of Beccles,
and the British Museum pedigree of Pecks might NOT ALL be suspect. After all, it clearly predates
the 1930s
folderol, accomplished by none other than the same gents responsible for the Visitations. No
doubt the
Visitations are subject to scrutiny, and I now assert, so does the pedigree of Pecks deserve more
scrutiny,
at least as to how it "confounds or clarifies"(to quote yourself!) the pedigree segment under
scrutiny. Keep
in mind that the British Museum pedigree rest on the Tonge's Visitation of 1530 and the 1563-64,
encompassing this vital segment of the Peck pedigree. Also, note that Bill Arnold did not propose
this
Peck pedigree, but it was SANCTIONED by the College of Heralds in 1620!
I am more and more inclined to wonder deeply about "neve" as it was used by John Leeke in his
will?
I am surprised no Latin scholar has chimed in? Where are they? If we accept the original
interpretation
of the authors of the Latin "neve" of John Leeke's in his will, then it would mean that Robert
Peck of
Beccles was his nephew, and that is HUGE inasmuch as it clarifies the British Museum pedigree,
because
he would then be a son of John Peck and his two of his sibling brothers accordingly had married
daughters
of Leeke/Leake/Leyke/L(no e)ake.
Bill
*******************************************
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
WJhonson
Also, note that Bill Arnold did not propose
this Peck pedigree, but it was SANCTIONED by the College of Heralds in 1620! >>
---------------------
Bill just what is it that you think this means? I guarantee you it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Will Johnson
Bill Arnold
they say.
What I mean is precisely what the words say: accordingly to British Lore, there are these
documents called Visitations and Pedigrees, in various archives, Museums, and published
in various books, and they were sanctioned by College of Heralds, and other officialdom.
In some cases they are proven to be right, when compared with other evidence. In other
cases they are proven to be wrong, when compared with other evidence.
In the case of the Pedigree of Peck, published as a foldout sheet in the back of Ira. B. Peck's
1868 book *Genealogical History of the Descendants of Jospeh Peck* and also before that
published by the College of Heralds and in the British Museum, with the same vital information
about the Peck segment under discussion here and now, although some additional two
generations were added for the Ira Peck book, subsequent to Robert Peck of Beccles.
Therefore, because this Peck segment predates the work of the authors of the 1930s
serialization articles in NEHGSR and is evidence, to be tested, just as Tonge's 1530 Visitation
and Flower's 1563-64 Visitation, it is my considered opinion it, too, needs to be revisited.
After all, IT is where all this folderol began. I am guessing that some members of gen-medieval
believe Bill Arnold invented this proposed Peck segment: when in fact it is at LDS in Utah,
also on the net at World Connect at rootsweb and only zillions of family trees all over the
web. It is high time it is put to the post-1930s and INTERNET TEST of the same standards
of gen-medieval toughness.
Bill
*************************
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
Nathaniel Taylor
Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In the case of the Pedigree of Peck, published as a foldout sheet in the back
> of Ira. B. Peck's
> 1868 book *Genealogical History of the Descendants of Jospeh Peck* and also
> before that
> published by the College of Heralds and in the British Museum
It is not known that that document originated with a herald: that is the
crux of the question.
> Therefore, because this Peck segment predates the work of the authors
author
> of the
> 1930s
> serialization articles in NEHGSR
NEHGR
> and is evidence, to be tested, just as
> Tonge's 1530 Visitation
> and Flower's 1563-64 Visitation, it is my considered opinion it, too, needs
> to be revisited.
Good.
> After all, IT is where all this folderol began. I am guessing that some
> members of gen-medieval
> believe Bill Arnold invented this proposed Peck segment
No; some of us believe it was invented by Horatio Gates Somerby, who was
hired by Ira Peck in the 1850s, and quite likely (as he is known to have
done in other cases) duped him by concocting a forgery to satisfy the
client's vanity.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
D. Spencer Hines
What a con artist...
DSH
"Bill Arnold" <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.573.11934845...@rootsweb.com...
D. Spencer Hines
2. Arnold has the same vanity as the client, Ira Peck.
DSH
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-A1...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Bill Arnold
In the works.
More anon.
Bill
*******
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> <<In a message dated 10/26/07 11:56:39 Pacific Daylight Time, billar...@yahoo.com writes:
> I no longer blindly accept that John Leeke was his
> grandfather: he may have been his uncle! For instance, records indicate that two daughters
> of John Leek married two uncles of Robert Peck of Beccles. So: I must be open to all new
> disclosures of facts in the pedigree, and normal behaviour of the times in terms of law,
> church, property, marriages, divorce, whatever.
>
> So: I assume you believe that the fact he made a deposition, under English law of the times,
> means he was of the age of majority? And that would be, what? 21?
>
> The authors concluded along similar line, that because John Leeke named him an executor
> of his estate in a will drawn in 1529 that he was of the age of majority in 1529? Do you
> agree with their conclusion? >>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Which is why, I believe a more accurate approach is: first quote EXACTLY what the primary
> document states, no additions, no brackets.
>
> Then translate it.
> Then add comments.
>
> That way we can all see exactly what is said, and what isn't. So if the will of John Leeke only
> mentions that Robert Peck is his heir with no explanation of WHY then that should be made
> apparent.
>
> If he made a deposition, then yes he was in his majority.
> If he was left as an executor, then maybe yes maybe no. We've had cases mentioned here where it
> can be shown that an executor was not in their majority when so-named.
>
> The question, in my mind is, were they allowed to *actually* execute while a minor (under the
> law) ? Or was this method, basically a way of *delaying* execution *until* a person gained
> their majority ?
>
> I'm not sure. It does sound however a bit suspicious, like the testator were trying to do
> something a tad squirrelly.
Bill Arnold
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-A1...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
"No; some of us believe it was invented by Horatio Gates Somerby, who was
hired by Ira Peck in the 1850s, and quite likely (as he is known to have
done in other cases) duped him by concocting a forgery to satisfy the
client's vanity."
Interesante! So: the implication of this post quoted above is that the *provenance*
of the British Museum four plates leads as a DIRECT DESCENDANT [sic] of the hand
of the alleged perpetrator: Horatio Gates Somerby? Proof?
Bill
*****
Nathaniel Taylor
Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Re:
> "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nathanieltaylor-A1...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net..
> .
> "No; some of us believe it was invented by Horatio Gates Somerby, who was
> hired by Ira Peck in the 1850s, and quite likely (as he is known to have
> done in other cases) duped him by concocting a forgery to satisfy the
> client's vanity."
>
> Interesante! So: the implication of this post quoted above is that the
> *provenance*
> of the British Museum four plates leads as a DIRECT DESCENDANT [sic] of the
> hand
> of the alleged perpetrator: Horatio Gates Somerby? Proof?
We are only talking about one Horatio Gates Somerby here: an
unscrupulous 19th-century genealogist who quite possibly made the
document now in the British Library up from scratch. Just because the
pedigree purports to have been written about 1620, does not make it so.
That is why it is important to have it examined by an expert.
European libraries are full of documents purporting to be much older
than they actually are. I myself have handled a falsified charter,
allegedly of the 12th century, actually forged in 1843, in the
Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris:
http://www.nltaylor.net/medievalia/crusade_contracts.htm
On this case, it would be interesting to see Ira Peck's correspondence
with Somerby. It seems as if S. Allyn Peck had access to it.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
D. Spencer Hines
Frauds and Charlatans.
Whatever happened to that?
It sounds like a Good Idea.
DSH
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-06...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Bill Arnold
"Interesante! So: the implication of this post quoted above is that the
*provenance* of the British Museum four plates leads as a DIRECT DESCENDANT [sic] of
the hand of the alleged perpetrator: Horatio Gates Somerby? Proof?"
Nat Taylor wrote,
"We are only talking about one Horatio Gates Somerby here: an
unscrupulous 19th-century genealogist who quite possibly made the
document now in the British Library up from scratch. Just because the
pedigree purports to have been written about 1620, does not make it so.
That is why it is important to have it examined by an expert."
In other words: there is NO PROOF and Nat Taylor has issued an unsupported
allegation to challenge the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum. How
unscholarly! The loaded words, adjectives of bias, "unscrupulous" and
"quite possibly made the document" and "up from scratch" are hardly
worthy of a response, but this is THE PECK THREAD and it MUST BE
CHALLENGED as MADE UP FROM SCRATCH as a response.
Nathaniel Taylor
Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > "Interesante! So: the implication of this post quoted above is that the
> > > *provenance* of the British Museum four plates leads as a DIRECT
> > > DESCENDANT [sic] of
> > > the hand of the alleged perpetrator: Horatio Gates Somerby? Proof?"
> >
> > "We are only talking about one Horatio Gates Somerby here: an
> > unscrupulous 19th-century genealogist who quite possibly made the
> > document now in the British Library up from scratch. Just because the
> > pedigree purports to have been written about 1620, does not make it so.
> > That is why it is important to have it examined by an expert."
>
> In other words: there is NO PROOF and Nat Taylor has issued an unsupported
> allegation to challenge the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum. How
> unscholarly! The loaded words, adjectives of bias, "unscrupulous" and
> "quite possibly made the document" and "up from scratch" are hardly
> worthy of a response, but this is THE PECK THREAD and it MUST BE
> CHALLENGED as MADE UP FROM SCRATCH as a response.
When one says 'forged pedigree' there are two possible meanings. The
first is that the pedigree contains made-up information, presenting a
genealogy that the author knows to be false or that the author knows is
without evidentiary basis. The second meaning is the one more commonly
said of other types of document: that the physical document was written
by someone other than its purported writer, usually at a time later than
it purports to have been made. In the case of the document printed in
facsimile by S. Allyn Peck in five plates opposite NEHGR (1936):371, the
first meaning is certainly true. The second meaning is quite likely
also true. The alternative is that is an authentic 17th-century forged
pedigree, at some point inspected and signed by a herald. I rather
suspect it is a much later document, by Somerby himself, for specific
reasons:
1. Horatio Gates Somerby, who sent a description and the information
from this pedigree to Ira Peck in the 1850s, is known to have concocted
genealogical information for American clients. Check the archives of
this group for discussions and citations of his works. He was not
unique in doing this. There is a good study of another such
genealogical forger of the following generation: Robert C. Anderson, "We
Wuz Robbed: The modus operandi of Gustave Anjou," and Gordon L.
Remington, "Gustave, We Hardly Knew Ye: A Portrait of Herr Anjou as a
Jungberg," published together in _Genealogical Journal 19.1-2 (1991),
47-58, and 59-70.
2. The pedigree itself contains a string, typical of eighteenth-and
nineteenth-century invented genealogies, of many generations of
armigerous Pecks, purporting to date from the twelfth to fourteenth
centuries, who probably did not exist. This is more typical of later
concoctions than of early 17th-century ones, I believe, since it seeks
to create a pedigree similar in look and feel to those published in
antiquarian works of the late 17th and 18th centuries.
3. The pedigree purports to demonstrate the armigerous ancestry of the
Pecks of Suffolk of the early 17th century, and purports to bear a
herald's sanction, similar to the style of attestation found on some
visitation pedigree manuscripts. However, compiled indexes of authentic
visitation materials, such as that developed by Cecil Humphery-Smith and
available online at www.achievements.co.uk, lists no visitation material
for any Suffolk Pecks. If such a pedigree was actually inspected and
signed by a herald, why is there no corresponding pedigree in any
17th-century Suffolk visitation MSS?
To test these allegations it is vital to inspect the rest of the MS and
see the physical context of this pedigree.
It is not unexpected that someone's response, after having a cherished
line shown to be invalid, would be to belligerently but unsystematically
impugn everything in sight. It is more worthwhile to use the episode to
develop criticial skills. In this case, I have done nothing but make an
allegation and suggest how it might be investigated. I have stated my
suspicions and supported them. Somerby's Peck pedigree, that's OK. I
am writing for others, and for myself, because I think it is an
interesting case.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
al...@mindspring.com
> Bill Arnold wrote,
>
> "Interesante! So: the implication of this post quoted above is that the
> *provenance* of the British Museum four plates leads as a DIRECT DESCENDANT [sic] of
> the hand of the alleged perpetrator: Horatio Gates Somerby? Proof?"
>
> Nat Taylor wrote,
>
> "We are only talking about one Horatio Gates Somerby here: an
> unscrupulous 19th-century genealogist who quite possibly made the
> document now in the British Library up from scratch. Just because the
> pedigree purports to have been written about 1620, does not make it so.
> That is why it is important to have it examined by an expert."
>
> In other words: there is NO PROOF and Nat Taylor has issued an unsupported
> allegation to challenge the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum. How
> unscholarly! The loaded words, adjectives of bias, "unscrupulous" and
> "quite possibly made the document" and "up from scratch" are hardly
> worthy of a response, but this is THE PECK THREAD and it MUST BE
> CHALLENGED as MADE UP FROM SCRATCH as a response.
Hi Bill and others.
I am a Peck descendant and the descent, if proven, would be
interesting, however:
1. If the pedigree is authentic it is not "proof" but merely one
piece of evidence which could be analyzed with other evidence.
2. It would need to be examined by an expert like Chris Phillips to
be authenticated.
3. Nat is correct that many of the pedigrees that Horatio Gates
Somerby provided clients have later been proven to be false using
wills, deeds and other written evidences. This is well documented in
the genealogical literature. Some easily accessible commentary can be
seen on the internet at: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~wdwrth/Billings/Issues.html,
http://caldwellgenealogy.com/anjou.html, and http://www.progenealogists.com/preed.htm.
Doug Smith
D. Spencer Hines
Interesting from a psychiatric perspective...
DSH
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-DC...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> It is not unexpected that someone's response, after having a cherished
> line shown to be invalid, would be to belligerently but unsystematically
> impugn everything in sight. It is more worthwhile to use the episode to
> develop criticial [sic] skills. In this case, I have done nothing but
Bill Arnold
Much thanks, Doug. And very glad to have a Peck aboard,
as, yes, if this little *hitch* in the proposed pedigree is validated,
it will, indeed, be interesante! Even Douglas Richardson will take
note! One leading genealogist told me that if Mr. S. Allyn Peck who
compiled the articles in NEHGSR in the 1930s knew what we know
now, he would have dug deeper and if he had validated it, he would
have published it rather than be praised for trashing it. Someone
said his series of articles was "dull and boring" with which I totally
disagree. This is genealogy. I admit that Mr. S. Allyn Peck was,
as one scholar termed him, "circumlocutory" in thought and expression.
And his vetting board and he seemed to have wanted to trash the
pedigree rather than resolve the question of WHO were the ancestors
of Robert Peck of Beccles.
Now: here is some more *cache* to this story. We MUST ignore
the naysayers. There are enough of them to go around. At least we
must challenge their ad hominem attacks upon us Pecks, and require
them to offer PROOF of their allegations. GEN-MEDIEVAL is a newsgroup
list of scholarship of messages, not a forum of attackers of the messengers!
They should be held to the same high standard of PROOF they demand
of others.
With all due respect to Nat Turner, as, indeed, I DO know WHO he is:
and perhaps, with a little googling, he will KNOW who I am: humble
Peck descendant, but not a *yeoman* as some have classified our
ancestors. So: Nat Turner owes us some *homework* if he wishes
to opine :) Remember he said he had not followed our THREAD but joined
after another alleged Peck descendant violated a private email, and
he, Nat, posted it against ethical standards of privacy. I believe Nat
Turner owes me an apology.
I KNOW he is a busy man, as so is Douglas Richardson, but then
so is Gary Boyd Roberts, and as I wrote, and will repeat in case you
missed it in the archives: at least Gary Boyd Roberts was enough of
a gentleman to give me the time of the day, a full hour and a half
and assisted this gen-medieval naif. Now: I am NOT a genealogy
naif, not by any stretch of imagination, but a former journalist,
college professor of English, scholar, author, et al. And Doug:
this story is NOT done yet. There are, as Will Jhonson and John
Higgins have alluded to: avenues of proof to validate the proposed
pedigree or invalidate it. Perhaps, you, Doug, have access and
understand the English system better than I. Join in, as you wish.
According to *my sources* the Pedigree of Peck PREDATES the
alleged perpetrator of an alleged fraudulent pedigree in the
British Museum allegedly created by the College of Heralds in
1620. Mr. Somerby (1805-1872) could NOT possibly be held
responsible for something created almost two centuries before
his birth, now could he? So: I do believe those who are dragging
the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby into this as the perpetrator of
a fraud owe us a DETAILED explanation of his crime. I am not
aware of it. I do not know how he could have from the 19th
century created a document which resides in the British Museum
Library and supposedly was created in 1620 by the College of
Heralds. Someone has to explain this one to me, and in the
meantime, take note of our famous genealogist:
Horatio Gates Somerby
http://famousamericans.net/horatiogatessomerby/
SOMERBY, Horatio Gates, genealogist, born in Newburyport, Massachusetts, 24 December, 1805; died
in London, England, 14 November, 1872. His ancestor, Anthony, came from England to Newbury,
Massachusetts, in 1639. He received a public-school education in his native town, studied art in
Boston, and had a studio in Troy, New York, for several years, but in 1832 returned to Boston,
where he was a fancy painter and japanner. After 1845 he resided chiefly in London as a
professional genealogist, and was the first American to devote himself exclusively to such work.
He became very skilful, and many families in this country availed themselves of his services in
tracing their English ancestry. Mr. Somerby was on confidential terms with George Peabody, and
became secretary to the board of trustees of the Peabody fund. He was a member of the New England
historic-genealogical society, to whose publications he contributed valuable papers, and a large
quantity of his unpublished material is in possession of the Massachusetts historical society,
with which he had been connected since 1859. He was the originator of systematic research for the
purpose of connecting New England families with their ancestors in Great Britain.--His brother,
Frederic Thomas, author, born in Newburyport, 4 January, 1814; died in Worcester, Massachusetts,
18 January, 1871, was educated in his native place, and became an ornamental painter. He was for
many years a correspondent of the Boston " Post" and the "Spirit of the Times," and published,
under the name of "Cymon," "Hits and Dashes, or a Medley of Sketches and Scraps touching People
and Things" (Boston, 1852). [Edited Appletons Encyclopedia, Copyright © 2001 VirtualologyTM]
Now: the PLATES of the British Museum Pedigree of Peck are in the 1936 NEHGSR, *tipped in* to be
exact, and they are,
unfortunately NOT online at the website, but ARE in the CDROM of the Register and they are in the
hardbound version:
of which I have a copy. I have DONE MY HOMEWORK, and been in communication with THE BRITISH
LIBRARY: and the
Pedigree of Peck is listed under: Shelfmark: *Additional Manuscripts, 5524, folios 158 to 160.*
Mr. Ira B. Peck, who
authored the MASTERPIECE of Pecks in 1868 referred to it as folio 152. In any event: the
CORRECTION is noted.
To be CLEAR: I DO NOT KNOW if the original manuscript in the British Museum has a KNOWN
*Provenance* but that
most assuredly will solve the problem of WHEN if not WHO delivered IT to the archives, where it
now resides. Mr. Ira B.
Peck offered his explanation which I am willing to share with you all. But I do NOT believe any
commentators, so far,
have a clue of its *PROVENANCE* and until they address that question, it is best NOT to malign
anyone, certainly NOT
Mr. Somerby. I believe SOME are going to be surprised when the TRUTH comes out. I too am looking
for truth and
certainty here, irrespective of naysayers.
More anon.
Bill
**************
--- "al...@mindspring.com" <al...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> -------------------------------
Bill Arnold
But can someone explain what is going on here, with SOMEONE
using the handle "D. Spencer Hines" is CHANNELING emails to us
from SOMEONE using the handle "Nathaniel Taylor" at another
list? Am I mistaken, or is it the SAME person?
Bill
****
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
D. Spencer Hines
Arnold is about as ignorant as they come -- and NOT just in Genealogy.
DSH
"Bill Arnold" <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.652.11936073...@rootsweb.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Arnold The Fanatic.
DSH
"Bill Arnold" <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.651.11936069...@rootsweb.com...
> and Things" (Boston, 1852). [Edited Appletons Encyclopedia, Copyright Š
Don Stone
posting messages to) the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup, which is not
a mailing list but which is gated with the GEN-MEDIEVAL mailing list.
(See the beginning of Question 1 in the FAQ for more information:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/faq.htm.)
-- Don Stone
Bill Arnold wrote:
> Excuse me, gen-medieval members:
>
> But can someone explain what is going on here, with SOMEONE
> using the handle "D. Spencer Hines" is CHANNELING emails to us
> from SOMEONE using the handle "Nathaniel Taylor" at another
> list? Am I mistaken, or is it the SAME person?
>
> Bill
>
> ****
> --- "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>
>> And that's precisely the response Arnold is displaying.
>>
>> Interesting from a psychiatric perspective...
>>
>> DSH
>>
>> "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:nathanieltaylor-DC...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>
>>> It is not unexpected that someone's response, after having a cherished
>>> line shown to be invalid, [....]
t...@clearwire.net
> And his vetting board and he seemed to have wanted to trash the
> pedigree rather than resolve the question of WHO were the ancestors
> of Robert Peck of Beccles.
While it sometimes disappoints descendants, 'trashing' a fraudulent
pedigree is a part of the pursuit of the actual ancestry. Replacing a
falsity with "we don't know" is still a step forward.
> Now: here is some more *cache* to this story. We MUST ignore
> the naysayers.
You would do so at your own peril. If you want reliable genealogy,
your aim should be to satisfy the 'naysayers'. If you ignore them,
then you blind yourself to possible flaws in your reconstruction.
> With all due respect to Nat Turner, as, indeed, I DO know WHO he is:
Oh?
> and perhaps, with a little googling, he will KNOW who I am: humble
> Peck descendant, but not a *yeoman* as some have classified our
> ancestors. So: Nat Turner owes us some *homework* if he wishes
> to opine :) Remember he said he had not followed our THREAD but joined
> after another alleged Peck descendant violated a private email, and
> he, Nat, posted it against ethical standards of privacy. I believe Nat
> Turner owes me an apology.
Nat TAYLOR simply responded to material that had appeared in the
newsgroup. If you have a problem over its posting, that problem
legitimately lies with the person who posted it, not with someone who
simply quoted the content of a newsgroup post to which he was
responding.
> I KNOW he is a busy man, as so is Douglas Richardson, but then
> so is Gary Boyd Roberts, and as I wrote, and will repeat in case you
> missed it in the archives: at least Gary Boyd Roberts was enough of
> a gentleman to give me the time of the day, a full hour and a half
> and assisted this gen-medieval naif.
If you add up the time he has spent responding to you, I would guess
Nat has spent more than a full hour and a half assisting you.
> According to *my sources* the Pedigree of Peck PREDATES the
> alleged perpetrator of an alleged fraudulent pedigree in the
> British Museum allegedly created by the College of Heralds in
> 1620.
Note the "allegedly" in that description.
> Mr. Somerby (1805-1872) could NOT possibly be held
> responsible for something created almost two centuries before
> his birth, now could he? So: I do believe those who are dragging
> the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby into this as the perpetrator of
> a fraud owe us a DETAILED explanation of his crime.
Given that he has been caught red-handed in other instances, I am not
sure that he can fairly be said to have a "GOOD name".
> I am not
> aware of it. I do not know how he could have from the 19th
> century created a document which resides in the British Museum
> Library and supposedly was created in 1620 by the College of
> Heralds. Someone has to explain this one to me,
He takes an old sheet of paper (perhaps a blank page knifed from an
old book, if he even went to that trouble). He writes his pedigree on
it. He then signs the name of a 17th century herald and writes the
date 1620. Finally, he donates it to the British Museum. This is how
he could have, from the 19th century, created a document which resides
in the British Museum Library that supposedly was created in 1620.
> Now: the PLATES of the British Museum Pedigree of Peck are in the 1936 NEHGSR, *tipped in* to be
There is no S in that journal - it is NEHGR.
> I have DONE MY HOMEWORK, and been in communication with THE BRITISH
> LIBRARY: and the
> Pedigree of Peck is listed under: Shelfmark: *Additional Manuscripts, 5524, folios 158 to 160.*
> Mr. Ira B. Peck, who
> authored the MASTERPIECE of Pecks in 1868 referred to it as folio 152. In any event: the
> CORRECTION is noted.
Well, at least we know it actually exists.
> To be CLEAR: I DO NOT KNOW if the original manuscript in the British Museum has a KNOWN
> *Provenance* but that
> most assuredly will solve the problem of WHEN if not WHO delivered IT to the archives, where it
> now resides. Mr. Ira B.
> Peck offered his explanation which I am willing to share with you all. But I do NOT believe any
> commentators, so far,
> have a clue of its *PROVENANCE* and until they address that question, it is best NOT to malign
> anyone, certainly NOT
> Mr. Somerby.
You seem to be viewing this backwards. Your critics are not
'maligning' Somerby because they doubt the Peck pedigree. They are
doubting the Peck pedigree because (among other reasons) Somerby is
known to have produced fraudulent material. When a document was
supplied by a known forger, it is simply standard practice to view it
with skepticism until/unless its authenticity can be confirmed.
> I believe SOME are going to be surprised when the TRUTH comes out.
Personal belief is not always the best indicator of outcome.
> I too am looking for truth and certainty here, irrespective of naysayers.
Critical evaluation is not antithetical to truth and certainty.
taf
Bill Arnold
Bill
********
t...@clearwire.net
> Excuse me, gen-medieval members:
>
> But can someone explain what is going on here, with SOMEONE
> using the handle "D. Spencer Hines" is CHANNELING emails to us
> from SOMEONE using the handle "Nathaniel Taylor" at another
> list? Am I mistaken, or is it the SAME person?
This 'group' exists in several different internet media. There is a
mailing list called GEN-MEDIEVAL and a newsgroup called
soc.genealogy.medieval. The mailing list is operated by a server at
RootsWeb.com that, in addition to sending out the mailings also
functions as a gateway between the two, passing all messages from GEN-
MED to soc.gen.med, and vice versa. Further, the privately run Google
Groups server harvests posts off of soc.gen.med and puts them on a web
page, to which people can contribute directly (with the posts passed
back to soc.gen.med) or through a mailing list gated to the web page.
Because of the nature of the propagation of the various media and
gateways, you can sometimes receive a response before you see the post
to which it is responding, and sometimes (fortunately less so than in
the past), some posts never make it all the way. All of the posts are
submitted to the same collective 'group', whether they appear to come
from Google Groups, soc.gen.med or GEN-MED.
Oh, and Nat Taylor and D. Spencer Hines are presumed not to be the
same person, although I am unaware if this presumption has ever been
confirmed by the witnessing of the two of them together.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
NOT for Nat TAYLOR, or anyone else here, to DISPROVE it.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Bill Arnold
so straight forward, and to the point. I get it: the New York Times
and The Guardian are *W-a-T-c-h-i-n-g*!
Re: NT and DSH. I am not sure about any of it. I wonder why NT
wants DSH as his gofer and goofer? At journalist desks, I have known
assistants to kneel to get in the good graces of an editor. I have been
told by the Brits at papers I worked at that it is an Englishism :)
Bill
**********************
--- t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
Bill Arnold
My remarks are interlinear, following your format:
From: t...@clearwire.net
On Oct 28, 1:27 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And his vetting board and he seemed to have wanted to trash the
> pedigree rather than resolve the question of WHO were the ancestors
> of Robert Peck of Beccles.
TAF: While it sometimes disappoints descendants, 'trashing' a fraudulent
pedigree is a part of the pursuit of the actual ancestry. Replacing a
falsity with "we don't know" is still a step forward.
BA: I am NOT disappointed. I understand your point. Otherwise: I would
have published the phony proposed pedigree as a genuine animal that
I see carousing LSD in Utah's website and the family websites and message
boards and World Connect at rootsweb. I am a scholar. OK?
> Now: here is some more *cache* to this story. We MUST ignore
> the naysayers.
TAF: You would do so at your own peril. If you want reliable genealogy,
your aim should be to satisfy the 'naysayers'. If you ignore them,
then you blind yourself to possible flaws in your reconstruction.
BA: Peril? A tad strong. I can satisfy naysayers who offer something
other than offer ad hominems, such as Monsieur SDH. I am open to
flaws and offers of support. Got any?
> With all due respect to Nat Turner, as, indeed, I DO know WHO he is:
TAF: Oh?
BA: Oh? What? Tad elliptical? Clarify? Can't I know HIM when he
used a sig file: and LOOKED it up? It ALLEGED he teaches a course
on Medieval Warfare at Harvard. Of course, given his behaviour, that
is funny. Oh?
> and perhaps, with a little googling, he will KNOW who I am: humble
> Peck descendant, but not a *yeoman* as some have classified our
> ancestors. So: Nat Turner owes us some *homework* if he wishes
> to opine :) Remember he said he had not followed our THREAD but joined
> after another alleged Peck descendant violated a private email, and
> he, Nat, posted it against ethical standards of privacy. I believe Nat
> Turner owes me an apology.
TAF: Nat TAYLOR simply responded to material that had appeared in the
newsgroup. If you have a problem over its posting, that problem
legitimately lies with the person who posted it, not with someone who
simply quoted the content of a newsgroup post to which he was
responding.
BA: No he did NOT. He brought to our gen-medieval a post I had
sent as private to an individual. He offered me nothing about the
Peck pedigree. If you want to see input on the Peck pedigree: read
John Higgins and Will Johnson posts to Middleton/Peck.
> I KNOW he is a busy man, as so is Douglas Richardson, but then
> so is Gary Boyd Roberts, and as I wrote, and will repeat in case you
> missed it in the archives: at least Gary Boyd Roberts was enough of
> a gentleman to give me the time of the day, a full hour and a half
> and assisted this gen-medieval naif.
TAF: If you add up the time he has spent responding to you, I would guess
Nat has spent more than a full hour and a half assisting you.
BA: Name ONE SHRED OF PECK PEDIGREE INFO HE ASSISTED THIS LIST
WITH: not just me, as this is a public list.
> According to *my sources* the Pedigree of Peck PREDATES the
> alleged perpetrator of an alleged fraudulent pedigree in the
> British Museum allegedly created by the College of Heralds in
> 1620.
TAF: Note the "allegedly" in that description.
BA: Of course. I told you I have a journalist's background. The
alleged adjectives are well-placed, I might add. Explain why
you want the list to "Note" them anymore than I wrote them?
> Mr. Somerby (1805-1872) could NOT possibly be held
> responsible for something created almost two centuries before
> his birth, now could he? So: I do believe those who are dragging
> the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby into this as the perpetrator of
> a fraud owe us a DETAILED explanation of his crime.
TAF: Given that he has been caught red-handed in other instances, I am not
sure that he can fairly be said to have a "GOOD name".
BA: Of course you have glossed-over the issue of *PROVENANCE* have
you not? If the Peck pedigree in the British Museum is dated 1620, you
CANNOT be suggesting that Mr. Somerby had anything to do with it,
when he lived circa two centuries later? Do you NOT understand, it
IS a "red herring" to the discussion and merely shuts down seeking the
TRUTH and CERTAINTY of the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library.
> I am not
> aware of it. I do not know how he could have from the 19th
> century created a document which resides in the British Museum
> Library and supposedly was created in 1620 by the College of
> Heralds. Someone has to explain this one to me,
TAF: He takes an old sheet of paper (perhaps a blank page knifed from an
old book, if he even went to that trouble). He writes his pedigree on
it. He then signs the name of a 17th century herald and writes the
date 1620. Finally, he donates it to the British Museum. This is how
he could have, from the 19th century, created a document which resides
in the British Museum Library that supposedly was created in 1620.
BA: how clever! Who would have thought that such was even possible?
Like creating a usury in Jerusalem and saying the bones of Jesus were
buried in it with Mary Magdalene's name on it and therefore Jesus was
married? Is that what you mean? Provenance, Sir! What IS the provenance
of the Pedigree of Peck. Ask the British Museum Library for records? If
it was DONATED by Mr. X, then we need to look to Mr. X. And WHEN was
it donated, and when was it LOGGED as RECEIVED in their archives?
> Now: the PLATES of the British Museum Pedigree of Peck are in the 1936 NEHGSR, *tipped in* to be
TAF: There is no S in that journal - it is NEHGR.
BA: I get it: NEHGS and NEHGR, org and journal :)
> I have DONE MY HOMEWORK, and been in communication with THE BRITISH
> LIBRARY: and the
> Pedigree of Peck is listed under: Shelfmark: *Additional Manuscripts, 5524, folios 158 to 160.*
> Mr. Ira B. Peck, who
> authored the MASTERPIECE of Pecks in 1868 referred to it as folio 152. In any event: the
> CORRECTION is noted.
TAF: Well, at least we know it actually exists.
BA: Funny, Sir. Obviously, you have not looked at it, as I have! I wonder how many scholars
if they became movie reviewers would be consider scholarly if they reviewed movies they had
NOT seen. Tell me how you do that?
> To be CLEAR: I DO NOT KNOW if the original manuscript in the British Museum has a KNOWN
> *Provenance* but that
> most assuredly will solve the problem of WHEN if not WHO delivered IT to the archives, where it
> now resides. Mr. Ira B.
> Peck offered his explanation which I am willing to share with you all. But I do NOT believe any
> commentators, so far,
> have a clue of its *PROVENANCE* and until they address that question, it is best NOT to malign
> anyone, certainly NOT
> Mr. Somerby.
TAF: You seem to be viewing this backwards. Your critics are not
'maligning' Somerby because they doubt the Peck pedigree. They are
doubting the Peck pedigree because (among other reasons) Somerby is
known to have produced fraudulent material. When a document was
supplied by a known forger, it is simply standard practice to view it
with skepticism until/unless its authenticity can be confirmed.
BA: You still do NOT read well. No one know yet, at least those writing to gen-medieval,
the PROVENANCE of the Pedigree of Peck. So how can you write "When a
document was supplied by a known forger..." without being considered
less than scholarly? So, do you still think I, Bill Arnold, am "viewing this
backwards"?
> I believe SOME are going to be surprised when the TRUTH comes out.
TAF: Personal belief is not always the best indicator of outcome.
BA: I seem to recall that Nat Turner wrote in an email, "I believe..."
BA: I will post more on this in a separate missive: please take note,
as a gen-medieval scholar, I believe.
> I too am looking for truth and certainty here, irrespective of naysayers.
TAF: Critical evaluation is not antithetical to truth and certainty.
BA: Wow. I'm impressed. Can you elucidate?
taf
BA:
Bill
*********
Bill Arnold
yawn.
As to your challenge, this is NOT medieval England, and you are not riding
a horse and you do not carry a lance at the ready. Bill Arnold accepts no
burder of proof because Bill Arnold is NOT on trial and there is NO King
to order me around, least of all by a nonce like you. Look it up! As in
crypto: I used to be member of the American Cryptogram Association.
Do not try to figure out why!
Bill
*******
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
Bill Arnold
of Joseph Peck* in Boston in 1868. In Jan 1870 W.H.W. offered a
mini-critique in *Book-Notices* of NEHGSR, page 96: See full citation at:
http:www.newenglandancestors.org/nehgsr/disk2/1870/870A096.gif
Ira. B. Peck responded in April 1870, pages 187-88, and said, in part,
among other things:
"In relation to the pedigree, I stated that it could be found in the British
Museum...[dated] 20th Nov. 1620." The three gentlemen named are
other than Mr. Somerby. Then Mr. Ira Peck, writes, in part: "It is in the
library of the British Museum...and was evidently prepared at much
expense for Nicholas Peck, the elder brother of Robert and Joseph,
who possessed, after his mother's decease, the most of his father's and
uncle's estates."
Nicholas Peck was the grandson of Robert Peck of Beccles, the Elder.
Nicholas Peck was b.15 Feb 1576, and his brother Robert was Rector
at Hingam (1580-1658) and his brother Joseph, b. 30 Apr 1587 was
gateway ancestor to America. The Reverend Robert went back to his
church in England and died there, as did Nicholas, b.1576, who never
left England.
Thus: the PLOT thickens! If Ira. B. Peck TOLD THE WORLD in 1870 that
his distant relative Nicholas,b.1576, had commissioned the Peck Pedigree
in the British Museum Library, then IF THAT IS TRUE AND CERTAIN then
the British Museum Library scholars ought to know the true provenance
of the plates (there are four). No one can make CALCULATED STATEMENTS
ABOUT THE PECK PEDIGREE and its TRUTH and CERTAINTY until the
PROVENANCE issue is decided. I can speculate, but as a descendant
I am entitled :)
Bill
*****
WJho...@aol.com
Ira Peck in the 19th century could have no idea of the truth of when the
older pedigree was prepared. So what he said on that topic isn't germane.
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
t...@clearwire.net
> Thanks, much, TAF. I like you. At least in this post. You write here
> so straight forward, and to the point. I get it: the New York Times
> and The Guardian are *W-a-T-c-h-i-n-g*!
>
> Re: NT and DSH. I am not sure about any of it. I wonder why NT
> wants DSH as his gofer and goofer?
This is not what is happening. The two are acting independently. Mr.
Taylor is posting his message to the group. Mr. Hines is then posting
a response, in the process automatically quoting the contents of Mr.
Taylor's post to provide context. You just happen to be seeing Mr.
Taylor's post second hand, but he made the original post to the group
and Mr. Hines is acting completely independently.
taf
Bill Arnold
Unless, now, we are maligning Ira Peck, as well?
Understand, according to his commentary, he wrote to thousands of
recipients all over the world: he was a Peck: if there was a family tradition,
or something for him to hang his hat on to make that *outrageous statement*
then I can take it with a grain of salt: it still must be dealt with in terms of
PROVENANCE. I have dealt with primary documents in research for decades,
and provenance is a big issue which decides many questions. If the provenance
question cannot be resolved, we have a very interesting house of cards, which
must be dealt with differently. Anyone got an inside track to the provenance
issue?
Bill
*******
--- WJho...@aol.com wrote:
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
Nathaniel Taylor
Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Much thanks, Doug. And very glad to have a Peck aboard,
> as, yes, if this little *hitch* in the proposed pedigree is validated,
> it will, indeed, be interesante! Even Douglas Richardson will take
> note! One leading genealogist told me that if Mr. S. Allyn Peck who
> compiled the articles in NEHGSR in the 1930s knew what we know
> now, he would have dug deeper and if he had validated it, he would
> have published it rather than be praised for trashing it. Someone
> said his series of articles was "dull and boring" with which I totally
> disagree. This is genealogy. I admit that Mr. S. Allyn Peck was,
> as one scholar termed him, "circumlocutory" in thought and expression.
> And his vetting board and he seemed to have wanted to trash the
> pedigree rather than resolve the question of WHO were the ancestors
> of Robert Peck of Beccles.
Part of the process of finding true genealogies is to expose incorrect
ones.
By the way, as I posted earlier, S. Allyn Peck (Shirley Allyn Peck) was
a woman.
> We MUST ignore the naysayers. There are enough of them to go around.
Ignoring "naysayers" (at least those who present valid critical
observations) will never resolve doubts about an issue in question. It
is an unfortunate defensive reaction that typefies naive genealogists.
> At least we
> must challenge their ad hominem attacks upon us Pecks ...
To interpret criticisms of genealogies as ad-hominem attacks on the
descendants of the subjects of those genealogies, is also, I am sorry to
say, somewhat naive.
> and require
> them to offer PROOF of their allegations. GEN-MEDIEVAL is a newsgroup
> list of scholarship of messages, not a forum of attackers of the messengers!
> They should be held to the same high standard of PROOF they demand
> of others.
The burden of proof works unequally. In modern genealogy, it is the
duty of the proponent of any genealogy to prove it. If legitimate
doubts are aired, the proponent of a genealogy needs to address those
doubts. Critics of a genealogy do not need to prove a different
genealogy, or to prove the genealogy impossible. In logical terms, the
converse of proof is doubt, not disproof.
That being said, I am interested in pursuing the question I raised,
about whether the pedigree printed in facsimile by S. Allyn Peck is
actually a (physical) forgery by Somerby. I do not presume to know for
sure--but I have stated the grounds for my suspicion. Don't YOU want to
know the truth about it, too?
> With all due respect to Nat Turner, as, indeed, I DO know WHO he is:
> and perhaps, with a little googling, he will KNOW who I am: humble
> Peck descendant, but not a *yeoman* as some have classified our
> ancestors. So: Nat Turner owes us some *homework* if he wishes
> to opine :) Remember he said he had not followed our THREAD but joined
> after another alleged Peck descendant violated a private email, and
> he, Nat, posted it against ethical standards of privacy. I believe Nat
> Turner owes me an apology.
No. I replied, in the same forum, to a (public) message by John Brandon,
which quoted a message you had sent him.
> I KNOW he is a busy man, as so is Douglas Richardson, but then
> so is Gary Boyd Roberts, and as I wrote, and will repeat in case you
> missed it in the archives: at least Gary Boyd Roberts was enough of
> a gentleman to give me the time of the day, a full hour and a half
> and assisted this gen-medieval naif. Now: I am NOT a genealogy
> naif, not by any stretch of imagination, but a former journalist,
> college professor of English, scholar, author, et al. And Doug:
> this story is NOT done yet. There are, as Will Jhonson and John
> Higgins have alluded to: avenues of proof to validate the proposed
> pedigree or invalidate it. Perhaps, you, Doug, have access and
> understand the English system better than I. Join in, as you wish.
>
> According to *my sources* the Pedigree of Peck PREDATES the
> alleged perpetrator of an alleged fraudulent pedigree in the
> British Museum allegedly created by the College of Heralds in
> 1620. Mr. Somerby (1805-1872) could NOT possibly be held
> responsible for something created almost two centuries before
> his birth, now could he?
Correction: the pedigree of Peck allegedly predates Mr. Somerby. Given
the doubts which have been raised about the document--let alone the
evident falsehood of the genealogy contained in it--it is quite
reasonable to be suspicious of anything about it, especially its
apparent age.
> So: I do believe those who are dragging
> the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby...
<...>
<snipped: laudatory sketch of Somerby from the following URL:>
> http://famousamericans.net/horatiogatessomerby/
Please note that this sketch was written for _Appleton's Cyclopedia of
American Biography_, published from 1887 to 1889--rather before Mr.
Somerby's genealogical career was significantly reassessed in the light
of modern scholarship in the field.
> Now: the PLATES of the British Museum Pedigree of Peck are in the 1936
> NEHGSR, *tipped in* to be exact
I may have misspoken: they were likely bound in rather than tipped in,
but on a separate unpaginated signature of glossy stock.
> and they are,
> unfortunately NOT online at the website, but ARE in the CDROM of the Register
They ARE on the website, just out of order, at the end of the issue
(keep page-clicking forward past the ads, etc.). The images I made
available to this list on pdf (linked from a previous message of mine)
were drawn from the NEHGS website (the journal is accessible there only
to NEHGS members).
As an aside, I wonder if the CD-ROM images of these plates are higher
resolution than those from the website. Many of the Register's
illustrations scanned at high resolution for the CD-ROM set seem to have
been downsampled for the on-line version (e.g., the heraldic line
drawings for the Roll of Arms). I would appreciate it if someone who
has the CD-ROM version could make these five plates available in pdf
form, if they are indeed of higher resolution than the versions from the
website. For convenience's sake, I here repost a link to the plates
containing the purported 17th-century Peck pedigree, here (260K):
http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_pedigree_1620.pdf
and the whole 72-page article series by Shirley Allyn Peck, including
the plate, here (3.7 MB):
http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf
> of which I have a copy. I have DONE MY HOMEWORK, and been in communication
> with THE BRITISH
> LIBRARY: and the
> Pedigree of Peck is listed under: Shelfmark: *Additional Manuscripts, 5524,
> folios 158 to 160.*
Good! What did you learn, if anything, of the nature, date and
provenance of the whole volume of Add. MS 5524?
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
t...@clearwire.net
> Thanks, much. As an aside: what is the point of two different groups?
>
The group was first formed as the USENET newsgroup
soc.genealogy.medieval. However, at the time (and still) there were
many internet genealogists who preferred to exchange genealogical
information via email (or did not have access to a reliable USENET
server), and so the GEN-MEDIEVAL mailing list and gateway were created
in order to allow these email-preferring genealogists to still
participate in soc.gen.med.
As to the Google groups gateway, this started as simply an archive of
all USENET posts, but the company running it then added both the
ability to post and their own linked mailing lists.
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Will Johnson wrote:
>
> > Bill Arnold wrote:
> >
> > > Ira B. Peck published his *A Genealogical History of the Descendants
> > > of Joseph Peck* in Boston in 1868. In Jan 1870 W.H.W. offered a
> > > mini-critique in *Book-Notices* of NEHGSR, page 96...
> > >
> > > Ira. B. Peck responded in April 1870, pages 187-88, and said, in part:
> > >
> > > "In relation to the pedigree, I stated that it could be found in the
> > > British Museum...[dated] 20th Nov. 1620." . . . "It is in
> > > the library of the British Museum...and was evidently prepared at much
> > > expense for Nicholas Peck, the elder brother of Robert and Joseph,
> > > who possessed, after his mother's decease, the most of his father's and
> > > uncle's estates."
> > >
> > > Thus: the PLOT thickens! If Ira. B. Peck TOLD THE WORLD in 1870 that
> > > his distant relative Nicholas, b.1576, had commissioned the Peck Pedigree
> > > in the British Museum Library, then IF THAT IS TRUE AND CERTAIN then
> > > the British Museum Library scholars ought to know the true provenance
> > > of the plates (there are four). No one can make CALCULATED STATEMENTS
> > > ABOUT THE PECK PEDIGREE and its TRUTH and CERTAINTY until the
> > > PROVENANCE issue is decided. I can speculate, but as a descendant
> > > I am entitled :)
> >
> > Bill I think you can see that that is a bit of silly argument.
> >
> > Ira Peck in the 19th century could have no idea of the truth of when the
> > older pedigree was prepared. So what he said on that topic isn't germane.
>
> Au Contraire.
>
> Unless, now, we are maligning Ira Peck, as well?
Mr. Peck was not in a position to judge the authenticity of the Peck
pedigree communicated to him by Somerby. Ira Peck is only 'maligned' to
the point that (as Will notes above) he cannot vouch to us for the
pedigree. He may have been duped. He took Somerby at his word--and
needed to defend it because even to contemporaries in 1870 (especially
someone as sound as William H. Whitmore [WHW], who wrote the notice in
NEHGR) it looked a tad suspicious.
The irony is that, suspicious as Whitmore was, he declared he would be
satisfied if Somerby vouched for it--and of course Somerby had!
I made a pdf of the 1870 exchange between Whitmore and Peck, available
at:
http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR_1870.pdf
For what it's worth, Ira Peck's _Peck Genealogy_ is available at
ancestry.com. It gives a typeset version of the pedigree published in
photographs by Shirley Allyn Peck, but nothing else of value for the
question at hand.
> Understand, according to his commentary, he wrote to thousands of
> recipients all over the world: he was a Peck: if there was a family
> tradition,
> or something for him to hang his hat on to make that *outrageous statement*
> then I can take it with a grain of salt: it still must be dealt with in terms
> of
> PROVENANCE. I have dealt with primary documents in research for decades,
> and provenance is a big issue which decides many questions. If the
> provenance
> question cannot be resolved, we have a very interesting house of cards, which
> must be dealt with differently. Anyone got an inside track to the provenance
> issue?
>
> Bill
YOU already do. What did you learn from the British Library about Add.
t...@clearwire.net
> From: t...@clearwire.net
>
> On Oct 28, 1:27 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > With all due respect to Nat Turner, as, indeed, I DO know WHO he is:
>
> TAF: Oh?
>
> BA: Oh? What? Tad elliptical? Clarify? Can't I know HIM when he
> used a sig file: and LOOKED it up? It ALLEGED he teaches a course
> on Medieval Warfare at Harvard. Of course, given his behaviour, that
> is funny. Oh?
I was simply (admittedly elliptically) drawing attention to the irony
of saying you know who someone is, while using the name of the leader
of a pre-Civil War leader of revolting slaves.
> > and perhaps, with a little googling, he will KNOW who I am: humble
> > Peck descendant, but not a *yeoman* as some have classified our
> > ancestors. So: Nat Turner owes us some *homework* if he wishes
> > to opine :) Remember he said he had not followed our THREAD but joined
> > after another alleged Peck descendant violated a private email, and
> > he, Nat, posted it against ethical standards of privacy. I believe Nat
> > Turner owes me an apology.
>
> TAF: Nat TAYLOR simply responded to material that had appeared in the
> newsgroup. If you have a problem over its posting, that problem
> legitimately lies with the person who posted it, not with someone who
> simply quoted the content of a newsgroup post to which he was
> responding.
>
> BA: No he did NOT. He brought to our gen-medieval a post I had
> sent as private to an individual.
Here you are mistaken, and as you are demanding apologies, it is
important that you demand it of the right person or it will be you who
owes the wrongly accused an apology. In the thread "Middleton
pedigree, 1100-1600 . . . " on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:00:39 -0700, (in
other words, 16:00 GMT) a post from John Brandon hit the Google
archive, containing the entire contents of your private message.
Then, on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:28:03 -0400, (17:28 GMT) Mr. Taylor's
response hit the archive, responding to Mr. Brandon's post and quoting
just a portion of the entire email previously posted by Mr. Brandon.
This course of events is still preserved in the Google Groups archive
to soc.gen.medieval.
> He offered me nothing about the
> Peck pedigree.
Actually he offered quite a bit, and you thanked him for it at the
time.
> > According to *my sources* the Pedigree of Peck PREDATES the
> > alleged perpetrator of an alleged fraudulent pedigree in the
> > British Museum allegedly created by the College of Heralds in
> > 1620.
>
> TAF: Note the "allegedly" in that description.
>
> BA: Of course. I told you I have a journalist's background. The
> alleged adjectives are well-placed, I might add. Explain why
> you want the list to "Note" them anymore than I wrote them?
Because you then go on to say that Mr. Somerby "could NOT possibly be
held responsible for something created almost two centuries before his
birth, now could he?" as if the word "allegedly" did not appear in
this dating statement.
> > Mr. Somerby (1805-1872) could NOT possibly be held
> > responsible for something created almost two centuries before
> > his birth, now could he? So: I do believe those who are dragging
> > the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby into this as the perpetrator of
> > a fraud owe us a DETAILED explanation of his crime.
>
> TAF: Given that he has been caught red-handed in other instances, I am not
> sure that he can fairly be said to have a "GOOD name".
>
> BA: Of course you have glossed-over the issue of *PROVENANCE* have
> you not? If the Peck pedigree in the British Museum is dated 1620, you
> CANNOT be suggesting that Mr. Somerby had anything to do with it,
> when he lived circa two centuries later?
If the Peck pedigree ACTUALLY DATES from 1620, then clearly Mr. S
could have nothing to do with it, but if it is only DATES 1620, that
does not imply that the date placed on the manuscript is the actual
date of composition. Again _allegedly_.
> Do you NOT understand, it
> IS a "red herring" to the discussion and merely shuts down seeking the
> TRUTH and CERTAINTY of the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library.
It does nothing of the sort. The only thing that would stop you from
seeking the truth would be the destruction of the document or your own
demise (and I would not favor either). I few years ago I concluded
that the transcript of a baptismal record was erroneous. Far from
preventing me from seeking certainty, this suspicion spurred me to
consult the original, thereby proving that my supposition was correct:
the original record differed from the transcript.
>
> > I am not
> > aware of it. I do not know how he could have from the 19th
> > century created a document which resides in the British Museum
> > Library and supposedly was created in 1620 by the College of
> > Heralds. Someone has to explain this one to me,
>
> TAF: He takes an old sheet of paper (perhaps a blank page knifed from an
> old book, if he even went to that trouble). He writes his pedigree on
> it. He then signs the name of a 17th century herald and writes the
> date 1620. Finally, he donates it to the British Museum. This is how
> he could have, from the 19th century, created a document which resides
> in the British Museum Library that supposedly was created in 1620.
>
> BA: how clever! Who would have thought that such was even possible?
> Like creating a usury in Jerusalem and saying the bones of Jesus were
> buried in it with Mary Magdalene's name on it and therefore Jesus was
> married? Is that what you mean? Provenance, Sir! What IS the provenance
> of the Pedigree of Peck. Ask the British Museum Library for records? If
> it was DONATED by Mr. X, then we need to look to Mr. X. And WHEN was
> it donated, and when was it LOGGED as RECEIVED in their archives?
Quite, and until we know, we are all free to speculate - you that it
is authentic, others that it is not.
> > I have DONE MY HOMEWORK, and been in communication with THE BRITISH
> > LIBRARY: and the
> > Pedigree of Peck is listed under: Shelfmark: *Additional Manuscripts, 5524, folios 158 to 160.*
> > Mr. Ira B. Peck, who
> > authored the MASTERPIECE of Pecks in 1868 referred to it as folio 152. In any event: the
> > CORRECTION is noted.
>
> TAF: Well, at least we know it actually exists.
>
> BA: Funny, Sir. Obviously, you have not looked at it, as I have! I wonder how many scholars
> if they became movie reviewers would be consider scholarly if they reviewed movies they had
> NOT seen. Tell me how you do that?
I once spent most of a day trying to find a manuscript said to be in
the collection of the Pennsylvania Genealogical Society. I eventually
was forced to give up, and strolled to the Pennsylvania Historical
Society. On a whim I looked up the subject there, and as you can
probably guess, found the manuscript. That it has been confirmed that
a manuscript is actually to be found in the British Library is, in
fact, an incremental improvement over it simply having been said to be
found there, particularly when forgery has been alleged.
>
> > To be CLEAR: I DO NOT KNOW if the original manuscript in the British Museum has a KNOWN
> > *Provenance* but that
> > most assuredly will solve the problem of WHEN if not WHO delivered IT to the archives, where it
> > now resides. Mr. Ira B.
> > Peck offered his explanation which I am willing to share with you all. But I do NOT believe any
> > commentators, so far,
> > have a clue of its *PROVENANCE* and until they address that question, it is best NOT to malign
> > anyone, certainly NOT
> > Mr. Somerby.
>
> TAF: You seem to be viewing this backwards. Your critics are not
> 'maligning' Somerby because they doubt the Peck pedigree. They are
> doubting the Peck pedigree because (among other reasons) Somerby is
> known to have produced fraudulent material. When a document was
> supplied by a known forger, it is simply standard practice to view it
> with skepticism until/unless its authenticity can be confirmed.
>
> BA: You still do NOT read well. No one know yet, at least those writing to gen-medieval,
> the PROVENANCE of the Pedigree of Peck. So how can you write "When a
> document was supplied by a known forger..." without being considered
> less than scholarly?
>From an earlier post in the Middleton thread: "The alleged Yorkshire
connection comes from a 20-generation pedigree supplied in 1853 to
wealthy American descendant Ira Peck by none other than Horatio Gates
Somerby". That is precisely how I can write "When a document was
supplied by a known forger..." without being considered less than
scholarly.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
He thinks if he just keeps playing dumb, belligerant and firing blanks then
people will feel sorry for him and do his genealogical work for him.
Nathaniel Taylor
> Bill Arnold wrote:
>
> > So: I do believe those who are dragging
> > the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby...
>
> <snipped: laudatory sketch of Somerby from the following URL:>
>
> > http://famousamericans.net/horatiogatessomerby/
>
> Please note that this sketch was written for _Appleton's Cyclopedia of
> American Biography_, published from 1887 to 1889--rather before Mr.
> Somerby's genealogical career was significantly reassessed in the light
> of modern scholarship in the field.
For a modern assessment, see Paul C. Reed, "Two Somerby Frauds, or
'Placing the Flesh on the Wrong Bones'," TAG 74 (1999), 15-30.
Paul concludes (p. 30):
"Henry Swan Dana's account of the Billings Family ... (1889), calls ...
Somerby 'a distinguished American genealogist ... living in London'.
The distinguishing aspect of Somerby's career must now be his fraud."
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/28/2007 5:23:41 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
billar...@yahoo.com writes:
Au Contraire.
Unless, now, we are maligning Ira Peck, as well?
-------------
To say someone mispoke does not malign them. If so, then we are all
maligned, you, I, every person can mispeak. If he was relying on someone else to
tell him thus-and-so and he repeated it (without citation), we've all done that.
We however, are in the position today, to say, well... perhaps he repeated
this verbatim from some other source without citation, however, we know that he
could not have known the truth of the matter first-hand.
I know you can see that. Ira Peck was not present in the 16th century, all
he can say, or should have is, it *appears* to be, it *seems* to be,
*evidently*. He cannot know what occurred as a fact.
D. Spencer Hines
Arnold is a would-be con artist.
He thinks if he just keeps playing dumb, belligerent and firing blanks then
people will feel sorry for him, want to "educate" him in _How To Do
Genealogy Properly_ and do his genealogical work for him.
Bill Arnold
--- t...@clearwire.net wrote:
TAF: "I was simply (admittedly elliptically) drawing attention to the irony
of saying you know who someone is, while using the name of the leader
of a pre-Civil War leader of revolting slaves."
BA: You might term it a *faux pas* but I would rather called it my subconscious
speaking to me, and you all: you see I was born in St. Petersburg, Florida,
and my paternal ancestors go back to north Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and South
Carolina, and a tad into North Carolina, with a few RS thrown in for good measure:
it is my maternal lines which come
from the northern United States: and I had ancestors in both sides of the War
Between the States, including a few *Blue Turncoats* [no pun intended :)]
and for my M.F.A. thesis at UMass-Amherst I wrote a novel about a infamous
historical incident in west central Florida, in the 19-teens, albeit writing during
the turbulent days of Martin Luther King's marches, and it all turns on my awareness
of Nat Turner!
Bill
*****
Bill Arnold
article on Mowbrays and saw it was associated with a group at rootsweb called
gen-medieval. I joined gen-medieval. I did NOT join google or some other
group(s) and ONLY post to gen-medieval. I CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE for
posts other than to gen-medieval. I do NOT read other groups because I
do NOT have a clue of them, just as I did NOT have a clue about a Peck group
at rootsweb which Mr. Taylor IMPLIED I should have been aware of. Period.
Bill
*******
--- t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
Bill Arnold
newsgroup. If you have a problem over its posting, that problem
legitimately lies with the person who posted it, not with someone who
simply quoted the content of a newsgroup post to which he was
responding.
BA: No he did NOT. He brought to our gen-medieval a post I had
sent as private to an individual.
TAF: Here you are mistaken, and as you are demanding apologies, it is
important that you demand it of the right person or it will be you who
owes the wrongly accused an apology. In the thread "Middleton
pedigree, 1100-1600 . . . " on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:00:39 -0700, (in
other words, 16:00 GMT) a post from John Brandon hit the Google
archive, containing the entire contents of your private message.BA:
Then, on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:28:03 -0400, (17:28 GMT) Mr. Taylor's
response hit the archive, responding to Mr. Brandon's post and quoting
just a portion of the entire email previously posted by Mr. Brandon.
This course of events is still preserved in the Google Groups archive
to soc.gen.medieval.
BA: I AM GOING TO PUT THIS IN CAPS SO YOU CANNOT ESCAPE ITS
COGENT MEANING. I POST TO GEN-MEDIEVAL. I CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR WHAT IS HAPPENING AT OTHER WEBSITES, MESSAGE BOARDS, ETC.
IF MR. TAYLOR IS SO SMART AND TEACHES AT HARVAAARD THEN HE
OUGHT TO UNDERSTAND THAT HE OWES THE RETURN MESSAGE TO THE
BOARD IT CAME FROM. AND YOU OUGHT TO DESIST IN PUTTING SPIN
ON IT OTHER THAN THE TRUTH AND CERTAINTY OF THIS RESPONSE.
Bill
******
D. Spencer Hines
Who has the definitive answer?...
With a quotation and citation, of course....
Not just opining.
DSH
"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193676143....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> By the way, as I posted earlier, S. Allyn Peck (Shirley Allyn Peck) was
>> a woman.
>
> Nat, I agree with everything else you've said, but I think S. Allyn
> Peck was probably a man (Shirley was one of those atrocious names,
> like Beverly or Leslie, that started out as a man's name in the
> nineteenth century before being adopted for women in the twentieth).
> Apparently Shirley Allyn Peck was unhappy with his first name and
> started using "S. Allyn," in which Allyn is unmistakably a male name.
Nathaniel Taylor
John Brandon <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > By the way, as I posted earlier, S. Allyn Peck (Shirley Allyn Peck) was
> > a woman.
>
> Nat, I agree with everything else you've said, but I think S. Allyn
> Peck was probably a man (Shirley was one of those attrocious names,
> like Beverly or Leslie, that started out as a man's name in the
> nineteenth century before being adopted for women in the twentieth).
> Apparently Shirley Allyn Peck was unhappy with his first name and
> started using "S. Allyn," in which Allyn is unmistakeably a male name.
John, you're right: Shirley Allyn Peck was a man. One URL from a
newsletter of the Columbia University library describes S. Allyn Peck as
"an alumnus of the Columbia business school:"
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/news/libraries/2002/2002-09-10.stackpoole
.html
And then I found him as a child (a son) in his parents' house in the
1910 Census (New York, New York, Manhattan Ward 12, District 654, page
2 of 36).
I didn't have a handle on his birth date, but now realize he was born in
the swing era for that name: the census shows him as either 8 or 3 in
1910 (kind of hard to read).
Oops!
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
D. Spencer Hines
Nat has also confused the SWING ERA, the 1930's -- with the RAGTIME ERA, the
early 20th Century.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nlta...@nltaylor.net> wrote in message
news:nltaylor-783D0E...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Nathaniel Taylor
Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rather than 'spin', Todd is trying to educate you about the way this
particular Usenet newsgroup / mail list / web forum operates,
functionally, as a single extended public message medium.
John Brandon originally posted your e-mail message to the google groups
web interface, whence it went to the Usenet server network, whence it
went to the gen-medieval mail list gateway, and thence back to you. I
read John Brandon's message on my ISPs Usenet server. My reply to John
Brandon's message was posted directly to my ISP's Usenet server, with
the understanding that it would ultimately propagate coterminously with
the message to which it replied. And it did: it went both to the
gen-medieval mail list gateway, and to the googlegroups Usenet gate,
probably in parallel via distributed Usenet message propagation. This
is the way the system is designed, and it is beneficial to have so many
available technical means of participation in what amounts to a single
meta-group.
Your all caps here seem to show an increasing desperation in seeking
some sort of moral high ground, on any aspect of this thread. Just take
a deep breath, get over yourself, and you can continue to discuss (1)
the real ancestry of the Beccles Pecks; and (2) the interesting question
of the bogus Peck pedigree.
I'm personally much more interested in (2) than (1), but I'm sure you
can make headway on both if you modulate your approach a bit.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
D. Spencer Hines
> In article <mailman.690.11936756...@rootsweb.com>,
> Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Arnoldesque Eyewash Deleted -- DSH
> Your all caps here seem to show an increasing desperation in seeking
> some sort of moral high ground, on any aspect of this thread. Just take
> a deep breath, get over yourself, and you can continue to discuss (1)
> the real ancestry of the Beccles Pecks; and (2) the interesting question
> of the bogus Peck pedigree.
Amusing...
t...@clearwire.net
Shouting will not clarify the point. Particularly when what you are
shouting is at variance with the reality of the situation. Before we
proceed, then, let's take a deep breath and try again.
<inhale> . . . . . . . . <exhale>
OK. First, you seem to still not appreciate the relationship between
GEN-MEDIEVAL and soc.gen.medieval. GEN-MEDIEVAL _is_ soc.gen.medieval.
They are one and the same group, just with two names, as required by
preexisting naming formats. The different names only distinguish the
means one uses to read and send in messages to this group. Google is
an archive of soc.gen.med, and as such serves as a convenient archive
for GEN-MEDIEVAL as well. That being said, there is also an archive
for GEN-MEDIEVAL.
The GEN-MEDIEVAL Archive, hosted by RootsWeb, contains the following
post, made on the 22 Oct at just after 9:00 PDT (16:00 GMT)
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2007-10/1193068839
This is a post from Mr. Brandon. It contains the complete contents of
your email. This is unimpeachable evidence that this post appeared on
the GEN-MEDIEVAL list. It was followed by the following post:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2007-10/1193074083
This was made by Mr. Taylor at 13:28 EDT (17:28 GMT) in response to,
and quoting, Mr. Brandon's post.
These records make it clear that Mr. Taylor was quoting a prior post
from Mr. Brandon that appeared in GEN-MEDIEVAL/soc.gen.medieval, and
it was this prior post from Mr. Brandon that contained the
objectionable material.
To address your various strident accusations, then, Mr. Taylor was
_not_ the person who brought your private email to the group. Mr.
Taylor _did_ reply to the same group in which he read the post. I
have _not_ been putting spin on it, but rather explaining what the
record unambiguously shows. If these points remain unclear to you,
then perhaps a request for further clarification will produce better
results than a shouted rant.
taf
Bill Arnold
gen-medieval and they ought to have the courtesy to continue it there!
I have no idea who's bright idea, below, it was to malign S. Allyn Peck
and call him a woman. For God's sakes, gents, Gary Boyd Roberts personally
knew the man and told me so himself. And what in the world has all this
folderol got to do with the Peck pedigree? According to TAF, you gents
are too busy to post about serious stuff, like genealogy. So: stop being
gnats, and go back to work, or else contribute genealogy.
Bill
******
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
t...@clearwire.net
> Will someone tell these gents that Bill Arnold started this Peck thread on
> gen-medieval and they ought to have the courtesy to continue it there!
Given that this thread has 63 posts and counting, its continuation on
GEN-MEDIEVAL seems not to be a problem. . . . or are you still under
the mis-impression that soc.gen.med is a distinct group?
> I have no idea who's bright idea, below, it was to malign S. Allyn Peck
> and call him a woman.
I see nothing there that would malign him, unless you think that being
mistaken about his gender is malignant. I would imagine that somewhat
more than half of the human race may not agree that to call someone a
woman is to malign them.
> For God's sakes, gents, Gary Boyd Roberts personally
> knew the man and told me so himself. And what in the world has all this
> folderol got to do with the Peck pedigree?
It has to do with the author who wrote about the Peck pedigree.
> According to TAF, you gents
> are too busy to post about serious stuff, like genealogy.
This is an outright lie. I said nothing of the sort.
> So: stop being
> gnats, and go back to work, or else contribute genealogy.
Perhaps I missed it - where was the genealogy in this post of yours?
taf
Bill Arnold
> http://www.nltaylor.net:
wrote:
Rather than 'spin', Todd is trying to educate you about the way this
> particular Usenet newsgroup / mail list / web forum operates,
> functionally, as a single extended public message medium.
>
> John Brandon originally posted your e-mail message to the google groups
> web interface, whence it went to the Usenet server network, whence it
> went to the gen-medieval mail list gateway, and thence back to you. I
> read John Brandon's message on my ISPs Usenet server. My reply to John
> Brandon's message was posted directly to my ISP's Usenet server, with
> the understanding that it would ultimately propagate coterminously with
> the message to which it replied. And it did: it went both to the
> gen-medieval mail list gateway, and to the googlegroups Usenet gate,
> probably in parallel via distributed Usenet message propagation. This
> is the way the system is designed, and it is beneficial to have so many
> available technical means of participation in what amounts to a single
> meta-group.
>
> Your all caps here seem to show an increasing desperation in seeking
> some sort of moral high ground, on any aspect of this thread. Just take
> a deep breath, get over yourself, and you can continue to discuss (1)
> the real ancestry of the Beccles Pecks; and (2) the interesting question
> of the bogus Peck pedigree.
>
> I'm personally much more interested in (2) than (1), but I'm sure you
> can make headway on both if you modulate your approach a bit.
BA: Hey, NT, I AM RIGHT HERE. You have been over there somewhere.
You sound like a Washington politician with all that SPIN rigamarole
gobbledygook. What is wrong with ALL CAPS: it got your attention.
And no, NT, I am not desperate. You are: calling S. Allyn Peck a woman.
And unethically responding to a private email you CALLED a private email.
Now you come over here seeking the HIGH moral ground. You have to earn
it, with me, Sir: Monsieur! You get over YOURSELF. I could care less about
your degrees or your place of work. OK? If you persist in calling the Peck
pedigree "bogus" then you MUST KNOW it reflects upon YOU to PROVE IT!
I have repeatedly said I DO NOT KNOW as to its status and its PROVENANCE
needs to be addressed. If you did NOT know that S. Allyn Peck was a man
you obviously do NOT know what *provenance* is either. No, Sir, why do
you NOT modulate yourself, and take a deep breath, and post to gen-medieval
if you expect me to read it. If your Mom calls from home, are you going to
call grandma's house to talk to her?
Sheesh.
Bill
PS
I am 70 years old and do not need your guff, but your smarts, and so stop
being all smart-alecky with me. Read your first posts, to gen-medieval,
and realize you maligned me then and are doing it again. Look in the
mirror, Monsieur!
********
Bill Arnold
OK, TAF, I love women, my mother was one. As for S. Allyn: why did they
NOT google him?
As to responding to the rest: as I probably will NOT respond to SDH, unless
you post about the Peck pedigree in a genealogical sense, I will ignore your
posts as well. I know this upsets you, terribly. Keep it on topic.
Bill
*********
--- t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
Bill Arnold
the collection of the Pennsylvania Genealogical Society. I eventually
was forced to give up, and strolled to the Pennsylvania Historical
Society. On a whim I looked up the subject there, and as you can
probably guess, found the manuscript. That it has been confirmed that
a manuscript is actually to be found in the British Library is, in
fact, an incremental improvement over it simply having been said to be
found there, particularly when forgery has been alleged.
BA: In a response yesterday to gen-medieval, I wrote about the statement
in 1870 of Ira B. Peck that it was his gateway ancestor Joseph Peck's
brother who commissioned the Pedigree of Peck in the late 1500s or
early 1600s. That seems to go nicely with the date on the British Museum
document: 1620, as Ira B. Peck put in his book. Will Johnson thought I
was being silly to think that Ira B. Peck could know that Nicholas Peck
had spent money and time, as Ira stated more fully, on such a mission
almost two centuries before Ira and his alleged cohort Somerby were supposedly
plotting a fraud. The implication is clear: Ira B. Peck was in on the fraud?
I do NOT know. But I do know this: in the 1960s when I was doing my
initial research on my ancestors I did what Ira B. did, I communicated with
all living relatives and relationships directed to who could provide info.
I communicated with a lady in Tampa, Florida, who said she had info
about my great-great-great-grandfather. She gave me handwritten
notes from her father, who's grandfather was the same man. We were
cousins. And I got personal written info *said* to be nearly 200 years
old. Some of it has been confirmed, and some of it has not. But clearly
the case is the same with Ira B. Peck, and this pedigree of Peck. There
IS a statement by the author of the book who brought this pedigree to
light that THE PEDIGREE OF PECK HAS A KNOWN PROVENANCE WHICH
APPEARS TO PREDATE SOMERBY BY ALMOST TWO HUNDRED YEARS.
Now: I KNOW that Ira B. Peck did the same kind of initial research on his
ancestors. And IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE to conclude that he might
have received similar communication: otherwise he would NOT have
written what he wrote in the 1870 NEHGSR as he did: unless he were
a party to a fraud. Here is some of Ira B. Peck in his introduction to
his 1868 book:
"No one of them will ever know the amount of labor and toil and money
it has cost me, or the difficulties, perplexities and discouragements with
which I have had to contend. The collection of the material, and the
arrangement of it, has occupied much of my time for more than ten
years. During that time, I have not only travelled much, but my
correspondence has extended into nearly all the United States and
Territories, the British Provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the
Canadas and England. I have written and sent out about 3,000 letters,
and 1,000 printed circulars. Of these letters, I have preserved copies
of over 2,700. In answer to them, I have on file received from my
correspondents over 2,000, many of them of much interest, all of
which, if published would make a volume maybe larger than this"
[intro, page 1].
More than likely, the Ira. B. Peck papers are housed at the New England
Historical Genealogical Society in Boston. Perhaps some scholars
will look up this matter.
Bill
*****
t...@clearwire.net
> As to responding to the rest: as I probably will NOT respond to SDH, unless
> you post about the Peck pedigree in a genealogical sense, I will ignore your
> posts as well. I know this upsets you, terribly. Keep it on topic.
>
It is truly amazing the things you 'know'.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> BA: In a response yesterday to gen-medieval, I wrote about the statement
> in 1870 of Ira B. Peck that it was his gateway ancestor Joseph Peck's
> brother who commissioned the Pedigree of Peck in the late 1500s or
> early 1600s.
Information that he could not possibly have known from personal
experience - someone must have told him that this was the case.
Probably the same person who supplied him with the pedigree, and who
is, coincidentally, a known purveyor of fraudulent genealogy. You
might as well argue that the $3 bill with the portrait of Mickey Mouse
on it is perfectly valid, since the person who gave it to you told you
exactly when and why it was printed by the US government.
An alternative is that Peck came ip with the description via post hoc
supposition.
> That seems to go nicely with the date on the British Museum
> document: 1620, as Ira B. Peck put in his book.
How surprising would it be for a known forger to provide a backstory
consistent with the forgery.
> Will Johnson thought I
> was being silly to think that Ira B. Peck could know that Nicholas Peck
> had spent money and time, as Ira stated more fully, on such a mission
> almost two centuries before Ira and his alleged cohort Somerby were supposedly
> plotting a fraud. The implication is clear: Ira B. Peck was in on the fraud?
No, only that he was taken in by it.
>
> I do NOT know. But I do know this: in the 1960s when I was doing my
> initial research on my ancestors I did what Ira B. did, I communicated with
> all living relatives and relationships directed to who could provide info.
> I communicated with a lady in Tampa, Florida, who said she had info
> about my great-great-great-grandfather. She gave me handwritten
> notes from her father, who's grandfather was the same man. We were
> cousins. And I got personal written info *said* to be nearly 200 years
> old. Some of it has been confirmed, and some of it has not. But clearly
> the case is the same with Ira B. Peck, and this pedigree of Peck.
If it were clearly the case, we wouldn't be arguing over it.
There
> IS a statement by the author of the book who brought this pedigree to
> light that THE PEDIGREE OF PECK HAS A KNOWN PROVENANCE WHICH
> APPEARS TO PREDATE SOMERBY BY ALMOST TWO HUNDRED YEARS.
Yes, but the probable source for that provenance is the same known
forger who supplied the author with the pedigree.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
taf is correct here.
Arnold needs to shape up or ship out.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Bill Arnold" <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.702.11936906...@rootsweb.com...
WJhonson
More than likely, the Ira. B. Peck papers are housed at the New England
Historical Genealogical Society in Boston. Perhaps some scholars
will look up this matter. >>
And Bill, this, isn't going to solve the issue one way or the other. Having myself been a party to a just such a few enterprises, I can assert with a bit of bluff, that the vast majority of the letters so-received are a mixture of a lot of modern-day babbling, with a tiny bit of useful history. The vast majority of the tiny bit however, being itself a mixture of verifiable statements with complete legend and no easy way to discern betwixt the two.
And certainly the information gathered in this way, cannot replace information gathered from actual manuscripts which can be *shown* and known to date back to the 17th century.
Genealogical fraud is not new in the respect of *creating* documents from a supposed earlier time. There was a modern-day example in that guy who was creating documents to sell to the Mormon church supposedly authentic historical documents, some of which were a bit scurrilous shall-we-say, quickly purchased and hidden. He used a similar technique of using old paper, old ink, archaic handwriting, or whatever.
The lie in the ointment is whether you can find ANY previous mention of such manuscripts in older works. If you cannot, and do set aside a mythical belief in secret societies hiding such documents for centuries, then you must conclude that the manuscripts are later forgeries. Must you not?
Will Johnson
D. Spencer Hines
You are a silly old fool.
DSH
"Bill Arnold" <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.700.11936896...@rootsweb.com...
[To Nat Taylor -- DSH]
Bill Arnold
almost two centuries before Ira and his alleged cohort Somerby were supposedly
plotting a fraud. The implication is clear: Ira B. Peck was in on the fraud?
TAF: No, only that he was taken in by it.
BA: I repeat, whether or not he was taken in by Someby does NOT explain
his statement it was his gateway ancestor Joseph's brother who commissioned
the Pedigree of Peck in the 1600s which now resides in the British Museum.
TAF: Yes, but the probable source for that provenance is the same known
forger who supplied the author with the pedigree.
BA: The word *probable* is a much used word in genealogy. In this case, however,
the British Museum Library more than likely has on file the provenance as FACT.
Bill
******
Bill Arnold
time. There was a modern-day example in that guy who was creating documents to sell to the
Mormon church supposedly authentic historical documents, some of which were a bit scurrilous
shall-we-say, quickly purchased and hidden. He used a similar technique of using old paper, old
ink, archaic handwriting, or whatever."
BA: Will, with all due respect, this ole scholar was not born yesterday. Scholarship needs to
PROVE
it was a forgery, not say probably was. A case just such as this occurred recently in Dickinson
scholarship, and the offending document was sold by a leading New York auction house to a leading
Dickinson institution, whence once studied *carefully* it was deemed a forgery. Until then: the
Pedigree of Peck is a legitimate document in a legitimate institution in England, the home of this
family.
The Poet and the Murderer
>From Esther Lombardi
http://classiclit.about.com/od/bookcollecting/fr/aafpr_poetforge.htm
Imagine discovering an unknown poem by a great poet like Emily Dickinson. It may shed new light on
her life and works! Who would want to think that such a poem could be a forgery? But it was.
The Literary Forgeries
It's difficult to guess how many literary forgeries are sold every day, sometimes for hundreds or
even thousands of dollars. With that much money on the line (especially for some of the greatest
writers), it's not hard to believe that forgeries are created every day.
In The Poet and the Murderer, Simon Worrall traces the path of one notorious forger, Mark Hofman,
a man who was so adept at his trade that he created thousands of forgeries of historical
documents, including faked manuscripts of Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, and other famous writers.
While many of those manuscripts were taken out of circulation, some of his forgeries are still
posing as authentic/original manuscripts.
A Short History of Forgery
Literary forgery has been around since ancient times in Egypt, Japan, Athens, and Mesopotamia.
While forgery has been used to protect original manuscripts, forgers like Giovanni Nanni (Annius
de Viterbo) and Denis Vrain-Lucas had different goals. As Worrall says, Giovanni was the "first
forger in the modern sense," and he forged documents "to boost the status of his beloved Etruria."
In creating those "sophisticated, forged historical documents," he was following the example of
other statesmen who had attempted to magnify the importance of their cities.
Annius took a slightly different approach. After forging inscriptions on pottery, he broke the
piece, buried the fragments, and then proceeded to discover his forgeries and prove their
authenticity. Worrall says, "Forgers are attracted by the sheer fun, and creativity, of their
craft--the scholarship and research, the inventiveness involved in rearranging the jigsaw puzzle
of history in new, and surprising ways." Worrall points out Vrain-Lucas, who "forged letters from
Alexander the Great to Aristotle, Francis Bacon to Galileo, Richard the Lionhearted to his
troubadour, Blondel."
As Worrall writes, "Money is a comparatively recent motive for forgery. Misplaced patriotism;
hatred of authority; a longing for social prestige or a need to reinvent oneself have been
others." That's why, I suppose, such acts of fraud have been used for "religious, financial, and
political purposes." As Worrall explains, these acts of literary forgery can be used to unfairly
influence (or discredit) others....
t...@clearwire.net
later shows up.]
On Oct 29, 8:30 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, let me make another stab at this conundrum. I read Douglas Hickling's
> article on Mowbrays and saw it was associated with a group at rootsweb called
> gen-medieval. I joined gen-medieval. I did NOT join google or some other
> group(s) and ONLY post to gen-medieval. I CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE for
> posts other than to gen-medieval. I do NOT read other groups because I
> do NOT have a clue of them,
It seems that the structure of the group is not yet clear to you.
Soc.gen.med (along with its Google Groups gateway) and GEN-MED
represent the same group, going by two different names. They are
simply different avenues by which one can contribute to the same body
of discussion. They are mirrors of each other, and every post we have
been talking about has appeared in GEN-MEDIEVAL, whatever avenue was
used to submit it.
> just as I did NOT have a clue about a Peck group
> at rootsweb which Mr. Taylor IMPLIED I should have been aware of. Period.
Simply pointing out that something was discussed somewhere is not an
implication that it should have already been consulted. One wonders
what kind of help you expected, if pointing your to additional
material is to be viewed as an implied attack.
taf
WJhonson
BA: The word *probable* is a much used word in genealogy. In this case, however,
the British Museum Library more than likely has on file the provenance as FACT. >>
-----------------------
Actually Bill, it's very *un* likely.
Will Johnson
Bill Arnold
Ira B. Peck stated unequivocably that his ancestor's brother Nicholas had commissioned the
Pedigree
of Peck in the British Museum Library, in 5 plates: Plate 1, Plate 2, Plate 3, Plate 4 and Plate
4a.
They are located: *Additional Manuscripts,* 5524, folios 158 - 160.
I have copies of the plates: they also appear in the 1936 NEHGSR, tipped in between pages
370-71. They can be viewed on the NEHGSR CDROM.
Ira B. Peck stated unequivocably that they were commissioned at the time they are dated:
c.1620. [see gen-medieval archives, citation 1870 NEHGSR]
In the front of Ira B. Peck's *A Genealogical History of the Descendants of Joseph Peck*
Mudge, Boston: 1868, on page 11 and 12, the author included a *transcript* of the
PEDIGREE OF PECK and his bold statement: "The pedigree, as it is here given, may be found
in the British Museum, London, England, excepting the two last families, those of Robert
and Joseph, which are added to it." In fact, this pedigree as it appears in plates with
arms reflects the STATE OF THE PEDIGREE back in the 17th century: without the additional
families. The authors of the 1930s serialized articles on Joseph Peck's English ancestors
state that church documents state that John the father of Robert Peck of Beccles had 9 sons and
9 daughters, and that the pedigree of Peck commissioned by Nicholas Peck is substantially
the same as Tonge's Visitations of 1530 and Flowers Visitations of 1863-64 with the rest
of the sons and daughters of John Peck's family restored. The provenance of the British
Museum Pedigree of Peck is yet to be substantiated in terms of who and when it was
received into the English archives.
It reads, in part, at the crucial segments before and including Robert Peck of Beccles:
_____________________________________
Richard Peck, Esq.=Alice, dau. of Sir Peter Middleton, Knt.
_____________________________________
John Peck, of Wakefield, Esq.=Joan, dau. of John Anne, of Frickley
_____________________________________
Robert Peck, of Beccles, Suffolk=dau. of Norton, 2dly, dau. of Waters
_____________________________________
Bill
****
Bill Arnold
WJhonson
And no one is disputing that Ira *said* it.
What's being disputed is whether it is, a statement with any evidence of it's truth.
So hopefully we can stop repeating that he said it. *That* he said it, is not the issue with which we're dealing.
Will Johnson
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"Bill Arnold" <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.717.11937113...@rootsweb.com...
D. Spencer Hines
This Arnold fool is Great Entertainment.
People are trying to help him but he won't even listen to them.
DSH
"Bill Arnold" <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.712.11937028...@rootsweb.com...
t...@clearwire.net
> BA: Will, with all due respect, this ole scholar was not born yesterday. Scholarship needs to
> PROVE
> it was a forgery, not say probably was. A case just such as this occurred recently in Dickinson
> scholarship, and the offending document was sold by a leading New York auction house to a leading
> Dickinson institution, whence once studied *carefully* it was deemed a forgery. Until then: the
> Pedigree of Peck is a legitimate document in a legitimate institution in England, the home of this
> family.
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to documents. There is no
presumption of authenticity. Until it is evaluated, its authenticity
has yet to be determined. That a document resides in a legitimate
archive is no protection against forgery. Most Anglo-Saxon charters
are held by legitimate archives, and many of them are forgeries. It is
further irrelevant where the location of the repository happens to
be. That a copy of the Magna Carta is (or at least was) held by the
National Archives in Washington or a medieval manuscript by the
library at Harvard does not make them less likely to be authentic than
documents that happen to be in England. Just as authentic documents
of the period were created in England, most forgeries were likewise
created there.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> BA:Will Johnson thought I was being silly to think that Ira B. Peck could know
> that Nicholas Peck had spent money and time, as Ira stated more fully, on such a mission
> almost two centuries before Ira and his alleged cohort Somerby were supposedly
> plotting a fraud. The implication is clear: Ira B. Peck was in on the fraud?
>
> TAF: No, only that he was taken in by it.
>
> BA: I repeat, whether or not he was taken in by Someby does NOT explain
> his statement it was his gateway ancestor Joseph's brother who commissioned
> the Pedigree of Peck in the 1600s which now resides in the British Museum.
It does if he was just repeating what Somerby told him. The history
of the document would not likely have come to Peck independent of the
document itself.
> TAF: Yes, but the probable source for that provenance is the same known
> forger who supplied the author with the pedigree.
>
> BA: The word *probable* is a much used word in genealogy. In this case, however,
> the British Museum Library more than likely has on file the provenance as FACT.
>
The BL probably does have documentation on how the documents came to
them, but it may just say it was donated by X. Whoever donated it may
have given further information, but it is an unjustified assumption
that this information is fact. Most stolen paintings have fully
documented provenance - it is just made up.
What is known is that the pedigree was communicated to Peck by
Somerby, and it can then be supposed that Peck got his information on
its creation from the same source.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> BA: Hey, NT, I AM RIGHT HERE. You have been over there somewhere.
?????
> You sound like a Washington politician with all that SPIN rigamarole
> gobbledygook.
You sound like the kid with his fingers in his ears making loud noises
so as not to hear inconvenient information.
> What is wrong with ALL CAPS: it got your attention.
On the internet, by longstanding practice, it is viewed as shouting.
Generally, when someone resorts to shouting, then rationality goes by
the wayside.
> And unethically responding to a private email you CALLED a private email.
He did not respond to a private email - he responded to a GEN-MEDIEVAL
post. This has been demonstrated.
> Now you come over here seeking the HIGH moral ground.
Over here?
> You have to earn
> it, with me, Sir: Monsieur! You get over YOURSELF. I could care less about
> your degrees or your place of work. OK?
Then why on earth do you keep mentioning them? That is not the
behavior of someone who could care less.
> If you persist in calling the Peck
> pedigree "bogus" then you MUST KNOW it reflects upon YOU to PROVE IT!
>
One can rarely prove a fraudulent pedigree bogus. It is only
incumbent on the critic to show sufficient reason for doubt. That it
was supplied to Peck by a know forger would seem to satisfy that
criterion. It is the responsibility of the person arguing in favor of
a pedigree to prove it accurate.
> I have repeatedly said I DO NOT KNOW as to its status and its PROVENANCE
> needs to be addressed. If you did NOT know that S. Allyn Peck was a man
> you obviously do NOT know what *provenance* is either.
Non sequitur.
> No, Sir, why do
> you NOT modulate yourself, and take a deep breath, and post to gen-medieval
> if you expect me to read it.
He _has_ been posting to GEN-MEDIEVAL the whole time.
> If your Mom calls from home, are you going to
> call grandma's house to talk to her?
You are if Mom and grandma live in the same house.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> Well, let me make another stab at this conundrum. I read Douglas Hickling's
> article on Mowbrays and saw it was associated with a group at rootsweb called
> gen-medieval. I joined gen-medieval. I did NOT join google or some other
> group(s) and ONLY post to gen-medieval. I CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE for
> posts other than to gen-medieval.
I apparently still have not myself entirely clear. It is all one
group, no matter which mechanism you use to view the messages. You can
watch a football game via cable TV, through the internet, listen to it
on the radio, go to a sports bar, or go to the stadium. It is still
the same game.GEN-MEDIEVAL and soc.gen.medieval are the same group,
and the mailing list, USENET and Google Groups are just different ways
of viewing this single body of posts.
taf
Bill Arnold
I assume we understand that Ira. B. Peck wrote in 1870 that his gateway ancestor Joseph
Peck's brother Nicholas commissioned the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library.
My point: in 1870 the statement was made matter-of-factly, as if he actually believed what
he was stating: in writing. What further evidence must you have than the man's written word?
I have read here and elsewhere that so much of what is know in the world of English medieval
genealogy rests upon pedigrees: and nothing else. In some case, that is all there is for a
lineage.
Bill
********
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
Bill Arnold
presumption of authenticity. Until it is evaluated, its authenticity
has yet to be determined.
BA: To paraphrase: Guilty until proven innocent doesn't apply to documents.
There is no presumption of fraud. Until it is evaluated, its fraudulence
has yet to be determined.
Bill
****
D. Spencer Hines
lies.
DSH
"Bill Arnold" <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.729.11937772...@rootsweb.com...
t...@clearwire.net
> TAF: Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to documents. There is no
> presumption of authenticity. Until it is evaluated, its authenticity
> has yet to be determined.
>
> BA: To paraphrase: Guilty until proven innocent doesn't apply to documents.
> There is no presumption of fraud. Until it is evaluated, its fraudulence
> has yet to be determined.
That is also true. Hence our judgment regarding authenticity must be
held in abeyance - we cannot just assume it is authentic. In other
words, until we know, we don't know.
taf
Bill Arnold
his statement it was his gateway ancestor Joseph's brother who commissioned
the Pedigree of Peck in the 1600s which now resides in the British Museum.
TAF: It does if he was just repeating what Somerby told him. The history
of the document would not likely have come to Peck independent of the
document itself.
BA: That is a big "IF" after "It does" and makes your entire statment conditional
on an event of which you have not proof.
TAF: The BL probably does have documentation on how the documents came to
them, but it may just say it was donated by X. Whoever donated it may
have given further information, but it is an unjustified assumption
that this information is fact. Most stolen paintings have fully
documented provenance - it is just made up.
BA: I take it you claim scholarship credentials on this list and reject *provenance*
as a viable piece of evidence. I will let other scholars speak to that. I have already
spoken.
TAF: What is known is that the pedigree was communicated to Peck by
Somerby, and it can then be supposed that Peck got his information on
its creation from the same source.
BA: Not so fast. It is NOT "known" as you state, because your statement is in direct
conflict with Ira. B. Peck's retort in 1870 that the Pedigree of Peck existed nearly two centuries
before Someby's time, and that the Pedigree of Peck was drafted by the College of
Heralds on the commission of gateway ancestor Joseph Peck's brother in the 1600s.
Bill
****************
Bill Arnold
post. This has been demonstrated.
BA: NT posted and I responded to him. Why are you answering for him? Are you
his butler or his man-servant? And you are sorely mistaken: in his first post to
gen-medieval, mentioning my name, he said clearly he was responding to a
"private email." It is in the archives, Sir.
Bill
Bill Arnold
presumption of authenticity. Until it is evaluated, its authenticity
has yet to be determined.
BA: To paraphrase: Guilty until proven innocent doesn't apply to documents.
There is no presumption of fraud. Until it is evaluated, its fraudulence
has yet to be determined.
TAF: That is also true. Hence our judgment regarding authenticity must be
held in abeyance - we cannot just assume it is authentic. In other
words, until we know, we don't know.
BA: To paraphrase: that is also true. Hence our judgment regarding fraud must be
held in abeyance--we cannot just assume it is fraudulent. In other
words, until we know, we don't know.
Bill
WJhonson
My point: in 1870 the statement was made matter-of-factly, as if he actually believed what
he was stating: in writing. What further evidence must you have than the man's written word? >>
What he said isn't relevant to what has evidence.
Bill I'm sure you've been in a courtroom before. What are you failing to see here?
People can state and FIRMLY believe many things that have no evidence whatsoever.
Ira Peck probably believed it, that does not mean that we must believe that he had any evidence.
Bill Arnold
was not born in Beccles but arrived there c.1525. See gen-medieval archives for fuller notation
and
citation.] Addenda/Leeke: a sister and a brother of Robert Peck of Beccles appear in The Peck
Pedigree in the British Museum and in the Pedigree of Peck in Ira B. Peck's 1868 book [see desc.
below]:
Ira B. Peck stated unequivocably that his ancestor's brother Nicholas had commissioned the
Pedigree
of Peck in the British Museum Library, in 5 plates: Plate 1, Plate 2, Plate 3, Plate 4 and Plate
4a.
They are located: *Additional Manuscripts,* 5524, folios 158 - 160.
I have copies of the plates: they also appear in the 1936 NEHGSR, tipped in between pages
370-71. They can be viewed on the NEHGSR CDROM.
Ira B. Peck stated unequivocably that they were commissioned at the time they are dated:
c.1620. [see gen-medieval archives, citation 1870 NEHGSR]
In the front of Ira B. Peck's *A Genealogical History of the Descendants of Joseph Peck*
Mudge, Boston: 1868, on page 11 and 12, the author included a *transcript* of the
PEDIGREE OF PECK and his bold statement: "The pedigree, as it is here given, may be found
in the British Museum, London, England, excepting the two last families, those of Robert
and Joseph, which are added to it." In fact, this pedigree as it appears in plates with
arms reflects the STATE OF THE PEDIGREE back in the 17th century: without the additional
families. The authors of the 1930s serialized articles on Joseph Peck's English ancestors
state that church documents state the father of Robert Peck of Beccles had 9 sons and
9 daughters, and that the pedigree of Peck commissioned by Nicholas Peck is substantially
the same as Tonge's Visitations of 1530 and Flowers Visitations of 1863-64 with the rest
of the sons and daughters of John Peck's family restored. The provenance of the British
Museum Pedigree of Peck is yet to be substantiated in terms of who and when it was
received into the English archives.
It reads, in part, at the crucial segments before and including Robert Peck of Beccles:
_____________________________________
Richard Peck, Esq.=Alice, dau. of Sir Peter Middleton, Knt.
_____________________________________
John Peck, of Wakefield, Esq.=Joan, dau. of John Anne, of Frickley
_____________________________________
Robert Peck, of Beccles, Suffolk=dau. of Norton, 2dly, dau. of Waters...sister Katherine Peck=John
Leyke/Leake/Leeke, of
...............................................................................................................................................Normanton...brother
Ralph Peck=the dau. of Leeke/Leake
_____________________________________
t...@clearwire.net
> Thanks much, Will, for your continued interest in the Peck Pedigree.
> I assume we understand that Ira. B. Peck wrote in 1870 that his gateway ancestor Joseph
> Peck's brother Nicholas commissioned the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library.
>
And he would not have known this from his personal experience, but
would have been repeating information that came from some undisclosed
third party.
> My point: in 1870 the statement was made matter-of-factly, as if he actually believed what
> he was stating: in writing. What further evidence must you have than the man's written word?
>
What is the value of the written word of a man simply repeating what
he has been told? Only as good as the information that has come to
him. No one is doubting that he believed it, but that doesn't make it
true.
> I have read here and elsewhere that so much of what is know in the world of English medieval
> genealogy rests upon pedigrees: and nothing else. In some case, that is all there is for a
> lineage.
>
This may once have been true, but is no longer so, and the more
contemporary records have become available, the more we have
recognized that pedigrees must be viewed with skepticism for material
that would have been beyond the personal knowledge of the individual
providing the information.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> BA: I repeat, whether or not he was taken in by Someby does NOT explain
> his statement it was his gateway ancestor Joseph's brother who commissioned
> the Pedigree of Peck in the 1600s which now resides in the British Museum.
>
> TAF: It does if he was just repeating what Somerby told him. The history
> of the document would not likely have come to Peck independent of the
> document itself.
>
> BA: That is a big "IF" after "It does" and makes your entire statment conditional
> on an event of which you have not proof.
We have no idea where he got that information but we know it was not a
first-person account. You would accept a statement made in 1870 about
events in 1620 as the absolute truth. That is not a reasonable
position to take. We need to know where he got that nugget of
information that he passed on before it can be trusted.
>
> TAF: The BL probably does have documentation on how the documents came to
> them, but it may just say it was donated by X. Whoever donated it may
> have given further information, but it is an unjustified assumption
> that this information is fact. Most stolen paintings have fully
> documented provenance - it is just made up.
>
> BA: I take it you claim scholarship credentials on this list and reject *provenance*
> as a viable piece of evidence. I will let other scholars speak to that. I have already
> spoken.
You seem to have a special talent for straw men. I do not reject
provenance as a valuable piece of evidence. I do reject hearsay,
which is all Mr. Peck's statement is.
> TAF: What is known is that the pedigree was communicated to Peck by
> Somerby, and it can then be supposed that Peck got his information on
> its creation from the same source.
>
> BA: Not so fast. It is NOT "known" as you state, because your statement is in direct
> conflict with Ira. B. Peck's retort in 1870 that the Pedigree of Peck existed nearly two centuries
> before Someby's time, and that the Pedigree of Peck was drafted by the College of
> Heralds on the commission of gateway ancestor Joseph Peck's brother in the 1600s.
>
When a document was created is completely irrelevant to how Mr. Peck
learned of it and got a copy. Surely you can see the distinction,
can't you. I have a print on my wall of an El Greco. I got it in
Cleveland in the 1990s. That the original was painted long, long
before has no bearing on when I got it and from whom. That Mr. Peck
was told by someone that the pedigree was created in 1620 does not
mean that it actually was, and has no bearing on who he got the
information from.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> TAF: He did not respond to a private email - he responded to a GEN-MEDIEVAL
> post. This has been demonstrated.
>
> BA: NT posted and I responded to him. Why are you answering for him? Are you
> his butler or his man-servant?
Are you trying to be offensive, or is it just happening by accident?
> And you are sorely mistaken: in his first post to
> gen-medieval, mentioning my name, he said clearly he was responding to a
> "private email." It is in the archives, Sir.
>
And that post, in the archives, clearly records that he copied that
quoted information from an earlier post to the group by Mr. Brandon.
taf