Discussion:
Communicating with medieval ancestores: Prideaux, Fortescue, Grenville/Bonville, Jenney, Harcourt, Champernoun, Weaver, Machell/Cudworth, etc.
Add Reply
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-09 17:01:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I have begun recording the stories of some of my medieval ancestors. I started with the 11th-century progenitor of my Prideaux (Pridias) lineage and his immediate descendants. Their stories disagree with the published Prideaux lineage, which is on WikiTree here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Pridias-Family-Tree-6

According to the ancestors, Baldwin wasn't the father of Nicholas de Pridias; Baldwin was a first-cousin once removed. I have posted these early Pridias stories here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_The_Pridias_family_%28early_generations%29

I have also recorded the story of Richard Fortescue, and the stories of Philippa Bonville and her father William, Lord Bonville and her husband William Grenville; I'll be adding those shortly. I've worked up the Grenville line, and the lineage (according to the ancestors) needs a bit of straightening out.

According to the ancestors, the ancestry of Plymouth Colony immigrant John Jenney is a bit different from that proposed by Matthew Hovious in "The Genealogist," but the lineage does indeed go back to Sir Edmund Jenney. Hovious's lineage is on wikitree at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Jenney-Family-Tree-2

According to the ancestors, John Jenney was not the son of Christopher Jenney, but rather the GRANDson of Christopher Jenney's first cousin, also named Christopher Jenney, who was a lawyer and the executor of Christopher Jenney's will.

As time permits, I will also share the story of John Harcourt and his descent through the "Bishops' Lineage" to immigrant Samuel Mathews of Virginia.
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-09 19:09:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
I have begun recording the stories of some of my medieval ancestors. I started with the 11th-century progenitor of my Prideaux (Pridias) lineage and his immediate descendants. Their stories disagree with the published Prideaux lineage, which is on WikiTree here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Pridias-Family-Tree-6
It would be helpful to the group if you clarified that when you say you are "Recording the stories", you mean that you believe you are literally speaking with the dead. This is important so the group members can immediately disregard all of your posts as nonsense
John Higgins
2018-06-09 20:13:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
I have begun recording the stories of some of my medieval ancestors. I started with the 11th-century progenitor of my Prideaux (Pridias) lineage and his immediate descendants. Their stories disagree with the published Prideaux lineage, which is on WikiTree here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Pridias-Family-Tree-6
It would be helpful to the group if you clarified that when you say you are "Recording the stories", you mean that you believe you are literally speaking with the dead. This is important so the group members can immediately disregard all of your posts as nonsense
The original poster gives further background on his supposed "communicating with ancestors" here:
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/535187/communicating-with-ancestors

Joe is quite right in describing this as "nonsense". One has to wonder how long WikiTree will allow such garbage to appear on its website. It's certainly not genealogy...as least in the sense that the site is intended for.
P J Evans
2018-06-09 22:10:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Higgins
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
I have begun recording the stories of some of my medieval ancestors. I started with the 11th-century progenitor of my Prideaux (Pridias) lineage and his immediate descendants. Their stories disagree with the published Prideaux lineage, which is on WikiTree here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Pridias-Family-Tree-6
It would be helpful to the group if you clarified that when you say you are "Recording the stories", you mean that you believe you are literally speaking with the dead. This is important so the group members can immediately disregard all of your posts as nonsense
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/535187/communicating-with-ancestors
Joe is quite right in describing this as "nonsense". One has to wonder how long WikiTree will allow such garbage to appear on its website. It's certainly not genealogy...as least in the sense that the site is intended for.
I'd describe it as entertaining, but not genealogy. (Writing *about* ancestors, fine, as long as it's clear that you're the one doing all the writing.) (None of my ancestors have communicated with us since they died. There are some I'd have questions for, if they did.)
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-10 13:13:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I see that the Taboo Enforcement Squad is on the job.

John Higgins, it is possible to be skeptical, even deeply skeptical, without being dismissive.

For nonsense, check out Joe Cochoit's make-believe gateway ancestor William Blackmer back to the Poyntz family, featuring seven-year-old child-bride Joan Collamore (?!?), at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Blackmore-Family-Tree-44
Post by P J Evans
I'd describe it as entertaining, but not genealogy. (Writing *about* ancestors, fine, as long as it's clear that you're the one doing all the writing.) (None of my ancestors have communicated with us since they died. There are some I'd have questions for, if they did.)
I did not really "write" it -- I received dictation and copied down words as they appeared in my mind. Maybe you could call it "conscious channeling."
Whether or not this is actual ancestral communication is a question well worth discussing. But I'm really not that creative a writer. Examples of my own writing style can be found here: https://independent.academia.edu/JohnSchmeeckle

Communicating with ancestors doesn't work unless you actively try. Respect and good intention are prerequisites. If you just want to (for example) find out that elusive maiden name or double-check that weak link in your royal ancestry, the ancestors might ignore you.
Instructions on how to communicate with ancestors are at https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/535187/communicating-with-ancestors -- most of that was actually dictated by a group of ancestors, but I added a point at the end.
Enno Borgsteede
2018-06-10 13:39:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
I did not really "write" it -- I received dictation and copied down
words as they appeared in my mind. Maybe you could call it "conscious
channeling."

What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_hallucination ???

The point is that, when you say that respect and good intention are
prerequisites, you can automatically disqualify any doubt that you meet
here as either respectless, or lacking good intentions, meaning that you
are always right. And that sounds quite delusional to me.

Enno
Joe
2018-06-10 15:40:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Excuse me John? I am not the Profile Manager on any of the Collamore profiles, I haven’t edited any of the profiles, I haven’t sourced any of the profiles, I haven’t adjusted any of the dates on any of the profiles, and I haven’t made any of the connections. Why would you single me out from the several million descendants of the Collamores?
I would appreciate it if you and your ancestors would leave me out of your conversations.
Post by j***@gmail.com
I see that the Taboo Enforcement Squad is on the job.
John Higgins, it is possible to be skeptical, even deeply skeptical, without being dismissive.
For nonsense, check out Joe Cochoit's make-believe gateway ancestor William Blackmer back to the Poyntz family, featuring seven-year-old child-bride Joan Collamore (?!?), at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Blackmore-Family-Tree-44
Post by P J Evans
I'd describe it as entertaining, but not genealogy. (Writing *about* ancestors, fine, as long as it's clear that you're the one doing all the writing.) (None of my ancestors have communicated with us since they died. There are some I'd have questions for, if they did.)
I did not really "write" it -- I received dictation and copied down words as they appeared in my mind. Maybe you could call it "conscious channeling."
Whether or not this is actual ancestral communication is a question well worth discussing. But I'm really not that creative a writer. Examples of my own writing style can be found here: https://independent.academia.edu/JohnSchmeeckle
Communicating with ancestors doesn't work unless you actively try. Respect and good intention are prerequisites. If you just want to (for example) find out that elusive maiden name or double-check that weak link in your royal ancestry, the ancestors might ignore you.
Instructions on how to communicate with ancestors are at https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/535187/communicating-with-ancestors -- most of that was actually dictated by a group of ancestors, but I added a point at the end.
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-10 23:38:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Excuse me John? [snip] Why would you single me out from the several million descendants of the Collamores?
Joe, back in the day, I did a lot of grunt work on the profiles of my Poyntz ancestors -- see https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Poyntz-Family-Tree-5
If I remember correctly, I got your permission to add coats of arms that you had posted on your website to the Poyntz and related families.

Then, quite a while later, you came along and made a lot of improvements to Poyntz and related profiles. So I looked up how you descend from Poyntz, and that nonsense Collamore descent came up.

--
What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_hallucination ???
I suppose the point in question is how to distinguish that from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediumship#Channeling

Perhaps another example will assist in considering whether these are hallucinations or reception from a source outside my own mind. My Swiss immigrant ancestor (to Germany) Martin Schmuckle gave a very detailed account of his life, including the story of his attempts to make changes in the community's policy of distributing farmland, and headaches that he had to deal with as a deacon in the church. Can you really just dismiss all this as a "hallucination"? His story is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_The_Schm%C3%BCckle_Family_in_Einod
The point is that, when you say that respect and good intention are
prerequisites, you can automatically disqualify any doubt that you meet
here as either respectless, or lacking good intentions, meaning that you
are always right. And that sounds quite delusional to me.
Enno, it seems that you misunderstood me. I was referring to being respectful and well-intentioned TO THE ANCESTORS. One thing that I have found is that, upon first communication, it is not uncommon for ancestors to immediately make a confession about things that they regret. If I get judgmental when sharing such a story with family members, my behavior won't be well-received by the ancestor or by any other ancestor who communicates with the ancestor. Ancestors can simply decide to stop communicating, especially near ancestors who already have established relationships with other living family members.

When I began recording ancestors' stories, I made it clear to the ancestors that I would not share anything publicly that they did not authorize. And that could mean simply not talking about some things -- imagine a couple that divorced, for example.
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-10 23:42:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Can you really just dismiss all this as a "hallucination"? His story is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_The_Schm%C3%BCckle_Family_in_Einod

Yes, of course we can. Because the alternative--that you are using your academic history background to make discoveries, but claim these discoveries were instead given to you via psychic communication with your ancestors...so that your 'psychic' communications can later be 'validates'--in order to give credence to some sort of fradulent enterprise--is a much worse accusation.

--Joe C
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-11 00:09:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Can you really just dismiss all this as a "hallucination"? His story is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_The_Schm%C3%BCckle_Family_in_Einod
Yes, of course we can. Because the alternative--that you are using your academic history background to make discoveries, but claim these discoveries were instead given to you via psychic communication with your ancestors...so that your 'psychic' communications can later be 'validates'--in order to give credence to some sort of fradulent enterprise--is a much worse accusation.
--Joe C
I would further point out that we know how episodic memories are stored. Memories are physically stored in the brain via the arrangement of synapses and neurons in the brain. Events in our lives when recalled cause the same brain pattern activity to occur. There are, perhaps, additional epigenetic ways to pass on 'memories', but they are not the types of memories relating to 'stories' or 'events'.

Meaning, that when you die, those memories are literally buried into the ground. There is no 'you' after you die that can somehow retrieve these memories which unfortunately have been left behind. If you doubt your ancestors brains lie in the ground still where they were buried, you can try digging one up and checking.

--Joe C
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-11 11:27:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It seems that I'm being trolled by a man with a make-believe gateway ancestor.

A materialist explanation of memory evokes thoughts of defunct scientific theories like phrenology, eugenics and phlogiston.
r***@yahoo.com
2018-06-11 12:56:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Do the "ancestors" ever let you know that you had their lines traced incorrectly? I'm guessing ... No.
Richard Smith
2018-06-11 14:08:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
I have begun recording the stories of some of my medieval
ancestors. I started with the 11th-century progenitor of my
Prideaux (Pridias)lineage and his immediate descendants. Their
stories disagree with the published Prideaux lineage, which is on
https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Pridias-Family-Tree-6
It would be helpful to the group if you clarified that when you say
you are "Recording the stories", you mean that you believe you are
literally speaking with the dead. This is important so the group members
can immediately disregard all of your posts as nonsense
There have been a number of posts in recent months from people defending
WikiTree and explaining the steps it's taken to improve the quality of
its early articles, for example with pre-1500 certification. How can we
be expected to take these assertions of improvements seriously when the
project seems content to leave in place pages of pseudo-messianic
bullshit from a man who cannot see why his hallucinations do not
constitute reliable sources? Cannot one of the WikiTree contributors
who post here from time to time do something to remove this? If the
cannot, it tells us that either the project has no real desire to
achieve a tolerable standard of scholarship, or it lacks even the most
basic processes needed to achieve that. Either way, it would be a
pretty damning indictment.

Richard
Andrew Lancaster
2018-06-11 19:50:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Smith
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
I have begun recording the stories of some of my medieval
ancestors. I started with the 11th-century progenitor of my
Prideaux (Pridias)lineage and his immediate descendants. Their
stories disagree with the published Prideaux lineage, which is on
https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Pridias-Family-Tree-6
It would be helpful to the group if you clarified that when you say
you are "Recording the stories", you mean that you believe you are
literally speaking with the dead. This is important so the group members
can immediately disregard all of your posts as nonsense
There have been a number of posts in recent months from people defending
WikiTree and explaining the steps it's taken to improve the quality of
its early articles, for example with pre-1500 certification. How can we
be expected to take these assertions of improvements seriously when the
project seems content to leave in place pages of pseudo-messianic
bullshit from a man who cannot see why his hallucinations do not
constitute reliable sources? Cannot one of the WikiTree contributors
who post here from time to time do something to remove this? If the
cannot, it tells us that either the project has no real desire to
achieve a tolerable standard of scholarship, or it lacks even the most
basic processes needed to achieve that. Either way, it would be a
pretty damning indictment.
Richard
Surely the logical question raised by this discussion is why we should trust individuals working on their own. People working in groups according to a method tend to work above their own level as individuals, and their mistakes tend to get caught. The arguments about this all happened centuries ago in most fields.

Note also that the the links to Wikitree above are to documents separate from the tree itself. Like wikipedia, wikitree has webspace available for drafts, project discussions, etc. These are often simply people's personal work (although that is also not the intention, the point is that they are not a communal effort, or subject to much oversight, for obvious reasons).
Peter Stewart
2018-06-11 22:22:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Smith
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
I have begun recording the stories of some of my medieval
ancestors. I started with the 11th-century progenitor of my
Prideaux (Pridias)lineage and his immediate descendants. Their
stories disagree with the published Prideaux lineage, which is on
https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Pridias-Family-Tree-6
It would be helpful to the group if you clarified that when you say
you are "Recording the stories", you mean that you believe you are
literally speaking with the dead. This is important so the group members
can immediately disregard all of your posts as nonsense
There have been a number of posts in recent months from people defending
WikiTree and explaining the steps it's taken to improve the quality of
its early articles, for example with pre-1500 certification. How can we
be expected to take these assertions of improvements seriously when the
project seems content to leave in place pages of pseudo-messianic
bullshit from a man who cannot see why his hallucinations do not
constitute reliable sources? Cannot one of the WikiTree contributors
who post here from time to time do something to remove this? If the
cannot, it tells us that either the project has no real desire to
achieve a tolerable standard of scholarship, or it lacks even the most
basic processes needed to achieve that. Either way, it would be a
pretty damning indictment.
This is a judicious comment - it might also be said that the willingness of SGM readers to engage with this in any other way is a (lesser) indictment of this newsgroup. Some cranks are best left to their own devices and desires, without paying attention to them.

Peter Stewart
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-12 03:04:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Smith
How can we
be expected to take these assertions of improvements seriously when the
project seems content to leave in place pages of pseudo-messianic
bullshit from a man who cannot see why his hallucinations do not
constitute reliable sources?
Such an emotional reaction to a way of thinking outside your walled-in consensus view.
There's a song for this:


And a logical song for the spiritual trauma inflicted all too often by our mainstream educational system:

Post by Richard Smith
Now I understand the prior Harcourt conversations. Is this it? https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/365031/harcourt-lewknor-conundrum-gateway-ancestor-samuel-mathews The Lewknor connection has been debunked in TAG and by Richardson. I think I have presented ample evidence before that John Harecourt de Whitney illegitimate son of Robert Harcourt KG of Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire who was knee deep in the War of the Roses and had a wife Anne and daughter Margery(cousin to the Ranton Harcourt's) would be the best candidate for the husband of Ann(e)Scalers.
Jason, as discussed on that thread (you seem to have forgotten), your bastard John Harecourt was ALIVE in 1493, but John Harcourt, father of Margery who was betrothed to Humphrey Wellesbourne in 1493, was LONG DEAD -- his widow Anne Scalars had already outlived her second husband Giles Wellesbourne. For anyone interested, a family tree of these people is here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Mathews-Family-Tree-14

And by the way Jason, my solution to the old Harcourt/Lewknor conundrum has not been debunked by Douglas Richardson, and it has not been debunked in TAG. You're just blowing smoke.

I have only briefly talked to my ancestors from Samuel Mathews through the bishops' lineage back to John Harcourt, who is still waiting for me to record his story. However, as I type this, an earlier Harcourt ancestor is willing to share some thoughts, which I will type as the words appear in my mind. (The ancestors' words appear in my mind in modern English, although occasionally I stumble over a particular word, and have to guess around until the ancestor is satisfied that I have grasped the ancestor's thought correctly.)

Harcourt will speak:
"Harcourt is an ancestor of the man who is recording. The man is not in need of confirmation. He shares what he thinks, and others may regard it as foolishness. Harcourt was able to communicate with his grandfather when he was a young man. His grandfather was influential as he grew up. Then his grandfather died, and Harcourt was told to think of his grandfather and accept the words that appeared. Harcourt did that. Harcourt was able to experience conversations with his grandfather for the rest of his life. This is all that Harcourt will say."
Jason Quick
2018-06-12 04:21:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Jason, as discussed on that thread (you seem to have forgotten), your bastard John Harecourt was ALIVE in 1493, but John Harcourt, father of Margery who was betrothed to Humphrey Wellesbourne in 1493, was LONG DEAD -- his widow Anne Scalars had already outlived her second husband Giles Wellesbourne. For anyone interested, a family tree of these people is here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Mathews-Family-Tree-14


Again. This John died before Jan 11th 1485. You keep going to 1493 because I listed a source that did not specifically state that this John Harcourt was dead. Its a modern interpretation of a court case, its not the actual translated record and all it states Margery was his heir.

1485 Jan 11th Appointment, during pleasure, from Michaelmas last, of the king's servant John Cutte as receiver of all the king's castles, lordships, manors and lands called “Spencerslandis' and “Sarysburyslandys' in the counties of Gloucester, Hereford, Worcester, Oxford, Warwick, Wilts and Berks, receiving such fees as John Harecourt, late receiver, had from the issues of the premises with all other profits. Died by Jan 11th 1485 pg. 505 1485 Calendar of the Patent rolls preserved in the in the Public ... 1476-1485 Edward IV Edward V Richard III. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079554;view=1up;seq=517

1485 Jan 11th Grant to Anne Harecourte, widow, late the wife of John Harecourt, esquire, son and heir of Robert Harecourt, knight, of a yearly rent of 20 marks from all manors and lands in the county of Oxford in the king's hands by reason of the minority of Edward, earl of Warwick, son of George, late duke of Clarence, during the said minority. >> Note John Harecourt esq. de Staunton husband of Anne Norreys died June 26th 1485 and this John (de wytney) is late receiver to the crown. https://books.google.com/books?id=uL85AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA498&dq=%22Grant+to+Anne+Harecourte,+widow,+late+the+wife+of+John+Harecourt,%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP2ovwmc3bAhVkAsAKHUdJCtkQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=%22Grant%20to%20Anne%20Harecourte%2C%20widow%2C%20late%20the%20wife%20of%20John%20Harecourt%2C%22&f=false

By the the way he is not my bastard, I have no link to John Harecourt. As for blowing smoke, you must have inhaled it ... Necromancy as a genealogical source?
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-17 04:54:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Quick
By the the way he is not my bastard, I have no link to John Harecourt.
Jason, you seem to be muddling separate men named John Harcourt, and thus confusing the identity of John Harcourt, who married Anne Scalers/Deschallers.

1. John Harcourt (1451-1485), the eldest son Robert, eldest son of Thomas Harcourt, married Anne Norreys.

2. John Harcourt (c. 1420- aft. 1495), Sheriff of Staffordshire, uncle of John (#1 above), apparently married (1) Eleanor Lewknor; married (2) Margaret Brace.

3. John Harcourt, presumed eldest son of John (#2 above), married Anne Scalers/Deschallers and died well before 1493, when his widow's IPM shows that after his death she married Giles Wellesbourne, and that her daughter Margery was betrothed to Humphrey Wellesbourne.

4. John Harcourt, bastard, of Wytney, Oxfordshire, alive in 1493 when his "daughter and heir" Margaret was abducted. There is no reason to suppose that he had a wife named Anne (you confused him with #1 above), and he was clearly not John Harcourt #3, who was already dead and buried.
Jason Quick
2018-06-17 06:55:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Jason Quick
By the the way he is not my bastard, I have no link to John Harecourt.
Jason, you seem to be muddling separate men named John Harcourt, and thus confusing the identity of John Harcourt, who married Anne Scalers/Deschallers.
No you have not read the sources I have given nor have you presented any evidence to state your case.
Post by j***@gmail.com
1. John Harcourt (1451-1485), the eldest son Robert, eldest son of Thomas Harcourt, married Anne Norreys. Yes this is correct and as stated before, he died June 26th 1485
2. John Harcourt (c. 1420- aft. 1495), Sheriff of Staffordshire, uncle of John (#1 above), apparently married (1) Eleanor Lewknor; married (2) Margaret Brace. There is no proof or documentation of a marriage to Eleanor Lewknor, the rest is correct. "It appears that a marriage to Eleanor Lewknor was invented to explain how John (not Thomas) Harcourt of Ranton, Staffordshire, came into possession of that manor, since Ranton in 1450 was owned by the Lewknors. However, no marriage is needed to explain the situation. Sir Roger Lewknor (son of Sir Thomas) conveyed the reversion of the manor of Ranton held by Edward Doyly to John Harcourt for payment of 500 marks in 1473. Thus, we see that John Harcourt purchased Ranton. We have found no evidence of a marriage between a Harcourt and an Eleanor Lewknor, and believe she should be removed from the Harcourt pedigree." TAG Jan/April 2004 pgs. 98-9. This John Harcourt was still alive in 1495.
3. John Harcourt, presumed eldest son of John (#2 above), married Anne Scalers/Deschallers and died well before 1493, when his widow's IPM shows that after his death she married Giles Wellesbourne, and that her daughter Margery was betrothed to Humphrey Wellesbourne. Not the son of #2, no documentation exists to tie another John Harcourt son of John Harcourt or to Staffordshire. The rest is True
4. John Harcourt, bastard, of Wytney, Oxfordshire, alive in 1493 when his "daughter and heir" Margaret was abducted. There is no reason to suppose that he had a wife named Anne (you confused him with #1 above), and he was clearly not John Harcourt #3, who was already dead and buried. As stated now for the third time. John Harcourt de Wytney (Witney) bastard was dead before Jan 11th 1485. He had a wife named Anne and was son of Robert Harcourt, Knight.
Please read the evidence


c. 1481-2 John Harcourt, the King's Receiver, had come to Caversham from Witney, Oxon. Historical Notices of Caversham, Volume 1 pg 24.

1485 Jan 11th Appointment, during pleasure, from Michaelmas last, of the king's servant John Cutte as receiver of all the king's castles, lordships, manors and lands called “Spencerslandis' and “Sarysburyslandys' in the counties of Gloucester, Hereford, Worcester, Oxford, Warwick, Wilts and Berks, receiving such fees as John Harecourt, late receiver, had from the issues of the premises with all other profits. pg. 505 1485 Calendar of the Patent rolls preserved in the in the Public ... 1476-1485 Edward IV Edward V Richard III. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079554;view=1up;seq=517

1485 Jan 11th Grant to Anne Harecourte, widow, late the wife of John Harecourt, esquire, son and heir of Robert Harecourt, knight, of a yearly rent of 20 marks from all manors and lands in the county of Oxford in the king's hands by reason of the minority of Edward, earl of Warwick, son of George, late duke of Clarence, during the said minority. >> Note John Harecourt esq. de Staunton husband of Anne Norreys died June 26th 1485 and this John (de Wytney)late receiver to the crown also had a wife named Anne and died before Jan 11th 1485. https://books.google.com/books?id=uL85AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA498&dq=%22Grant+to+Anne+Harecourte,+widow,+late+the+wife+of+John+Harecourt,%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP2ovwmc3bAhVkAsAKHUdJCtkQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=%22Grant%20to%20Anne%20Harecourte%2C%20widow%2C%20late%20the%20wife%20of%20John%20Harecourt%2C%22&f=false

1493 - In the third case, arising from the abduction in 1493 of Margaret Harecourt, daughter and heir of John Harecourt esquire, of Witney in Oxfordshire, two gentlemen and two yeomen did surrender to the crown, but nothing more is known. Pg. 31 Wealth and power in Tudor England: essays presented to S. T. Bindoff. Source in book 48. (KB 9 Indictment Rolls) KB9/402/52 — indicted 24 Feb. 1494, to king's bench Mich. 1494 but no entries in Rex Roll for Mich, to Pas. 1494-95, KB27/933, 934, 935. >>>> Note: I believe this has to do of the forced marriage between Humphrey Wellesbourne and Margaret Harecourt in 1493. Margaret was the heir of 1/3 of the John Scalers Inheritance tail in fee. - Nothing in this states that John Harcourt is still alive.

It's the last time I am repeating this, unless you can provide accurate sources to debunk what I have presented.
Jason Quick
2018-06-17 18:27:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
John. I don't think you have read any of the sources I presented nor have you given any new evidence to prove your claims.


1. John Harcourt (1451-1485), the eldest son Robert, eldest son of Thomas Harcourt, married Anne Norreys.- New - Yes this is correct and as stated before, he died June 26th 1485

2. John Harcourt (c. 1420- aft. 1495), Sheriff of Staffordshire, uncle of John (#1 above), apparently married (1) Eleanor Lewknor; married (2) Margaret Brace. - New - There is no proof or documentation of a marriage to Eleanor Lewknor, the rest is correct. "It appears that a marriage to Eleanor Lewknor was invented to explain how John (not Thomas) Harcourt of Ranton, Staffordshire, came into possession of that manor, since Ranton in 1450 was owned by the Lewknors. However, no marriage is needed to explain the situation. Sir Roger Lewknor (son of Sir Thomas) conveyed the reversion of the manor of Ranton held by Edward Doyly to John Harcourt for payment of 500 marks in 1473. Thus, we see that John Harcourt purchased Ranton. We have found no evidence of a marriage between a Harcourt and an Eleanor Lewknor, and believe she should be removed from the Harcourt pedigree." TAG Jan/April 2004 pgs. 98-9. This John Harcourt was still alive in 1495.

3. John Harcourt, presumed eldest son of John (#2 above), married Anne Scalers/Deschallers and died well before 1493, when his widow's IPM shows that after his death she married Giles Wellesbourne, and that her daughter Margery was betrothed to Humphrey Wellesbourne. - New - Not the son of #2, no documentation exists to tie another John Harcourt son of John Harcourt or to Staffordshire. The rest is True

4. John Harcourt, bastard, of Wytney, Oxfordshire, alive in 1493 when his "daughter and heir" Margaret was abducted. There is no reason to suppose that he had a wife named Anne (you confused him with #1 above), and he was clearly not John Harcourt #3, who was already dead and buried. - New - As stated now for the third time he died bef Jan 11 1485, had a Wife Anne and a daughter Margaret. See the evidence below.

c. 1481-2 John Harcourt, the King's Receiver, had come to Caversham from Witney, Oxon. Historical Notices of Caversham, Volume 1 pg 24.

1485 Jan 11th Appointment, during pleasure, from Michaelmas last, of the king's servant John Cutte as receiver of all the king's castles, lordships, manors and lands called “Spencerslandis' and “Sarysburyslandys' in the counties of Gloucester, Hereford, Worcester, Oxford, Warwick, Wilts and Berks, receiving such fees as John Harecourt, late receiver, had from the issues of the premises with all other profits. pg. 505 1485 Calendar of the Patent rolls preserved in the in the Public ... 1476-1485 Edward IV Edward V Richard III. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079554;view=1up;seq=517

1485 Jan 11th Grant to Anne Harecourte, widow, late the wife of John Harecourt, esquire, son and heir of Robert Harecourt, knight, of a yearly rent of 20 marks from all manors and lands in the county of Oxford in the king's hands by reason of the minority of Edward, earl of Warwick, son of George, late duke of Clarence, during the said minority. >> Note John Harecourt esq. de Staunton husband of Anne Norreys died June 26th 1485 and this John (de Wytney)late receiver to the crown also had a wife named Anne and died before Jan 11th 1485. https://books.google.com/books?id=uL85AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA498&dq=%22Grant+to+Anne+Harecourte,+widow,+late+the+wife+of+John+Harecourt,%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP2ovwmc3bAhVkAsAKHUdJCtkQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=%22Grant%20to%20Anne%20Harecourte%2C%20widow%2C%20late%20the%20wife%20of%20John%20Harecourt%2C%22&f=false

1486 - Plaintiffs: Reynold Danvers and Jane, his wife, previously the wife of Edward Bekyngham. Defendants: John Cesson, clerk. Subject: Detention of deeds relating to the same, and bond obtained without consideration by John Harecourt, bastard, esquire, late of Wytney. Oxfordshire. 4 documentshttp://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C7454599

1493 - In the third case, arising from the abduction in 1493 of Margaret Harecourt, daughter and heir of John Harecourt esquire, of Witney in Oxfordshire, two gentlemen and two yeomen did surrender to the crown, but nothing more is known. Pg. 31 Wealth and power in Tudor England: essays presented to S. T. Bindoff. Source in book 48. (KB 9 Indictment Rolls) KB9/402/52 — indicted 24 Feb. 1494, to king's bench Mich. 1494 but no entries in Rex Roll for Mich, to Pas. 1494-95, KB27/933, 934, 935. >>>> Note: I believe this has to do of the forced marriage between Humphrey Wellesbourne and Margaret Harecourt in 1493. Margaret was the heir of 1/3 of the John Scalers Inheritance tail in fee. - Nothing in this quote from a book states that John Harcourt is still alive.

I would be fine if you proved me wrong with actual sources but you don't have any to give. All the sources I have used are in my original post. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/harecourt$20tag%7Csort:date/soc.genealogy.medieval/aWHunzol9PQ/0FG8Hsf7CwAJ

Unless you present something else this is the last time I will be responding on this matter. Thanks - J
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-18 14:59:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Quick
Unless you present something else this is the last time I will be responding on this matter.
In light of your earlier rudeness, you will not be missed.
Post by Jason Quick
I think I have presented ample evidence before that John Harecourt de Whitney illegitimate son of Robert Harcourt KG of Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire...
You falsely assume that "John Harecourt, esquire, son and heir of Robert Harecourt," whose widow Anne was mentioned on Jan. 11, 1485," was the same as John Harcourt, bastard of Witney.
Post by Jason Quick
Note John Harecourt esq. de Staunton husband of Anne Norreys died June 26th 1485 and this John (de Wytney)late receiver to the crown also had a wife named Anne and died before Jan 11th 1485.
You seem to be unaware that, back in the middle ages, New Year's Day was March 25, so January 1485 came AFTER July 1485, reaffirming that widow Anne Harecourt, mentioned on Jan. 11, 1485 was the same as Anne Norreys, wife of John Harecourt, eldest (legitimate) son and heir of Robert Harecourt.

However, it does appear that John Harecourt, "late of Wytney" in 1486, was indeed deceased by then -- I was in error in assuming that he was still alive in 1493.

You state your "belief" that MargArET, daughter of John Harecourt of Witney and victim of the 1493 abduction, was the same as MargErY, daughter of John Harecourt and Ann Scalers. However, Margaret and Margery are different names (especially when appearing in legal documents), and your description of Margery's marriage to Humphrey Wellesbourne as "forced" is a groundless assertion, going well beyond the available evidence.
Post by Jason Quick
The Lewknor connection has been debunked in TAG and by Richardson.
Here, once again, you are simply blowing smoke. Richardson, after embracing a false Lewknor connection in Plantagenet Ancestry, removed the error in his later books without any discussion or solution to the old conundrum. Regarding TAG, you are evidently referring to Brandon Fradd's "A New Royal Ancestry for Christopher Batt," in TAG 2004, starting on p. 85, with a section on Lewknor connections on pp. 97-8. In this section debunks earlier suppositions that "Eleanor Lewknor" was the wife of a Richard Harcourt and that she was the MOTHER of John Harcourt who purchased the reversion of Ranton from Roger Lewknor in 1473. However, neither Fradd nor Richardson deal with the statement in "A Biographical, Historical, Genealogical and Heraldic Account of the House of D'Oyly" (1845) (as cited in "Collections for a History of Staffordshire," 2:69 footnote) for the statement that Roger Lewknor sold the reversion of Ranton to John Harcourt TO KEEP THE ANCIENT MANOR IN THE FAMILY.

My proposed solution to this old Harcourt/Lewknor conundrum, once again, is that when John Harcourt purchased the reversion of Ranton in 1473 he did so with the expectation that his eldest son John (by his deceased first wife who was a Lewknor) would inherit. But eldest son John predeceased his father (leaving an only daughter Margery who married Humphrey Wellesbourne), so Ranton eventually passed to second son Thomas by John's second wife Margaret Brace, defeating Roger Lewknor's hope of keeping Ranton in the hands of a Lewknor kinsman.

For whatever it's worth, my ancestor John Harcourt states that his first wife was MARGERY Lewknor, which would mean that his son John named his only daughter for the mother whom he never knew. I will be sharing more of the Harcourts' stories as time permits.
Les A Cox
2018-07-23 04:35:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Jason Quick
By the the way he is not my bastard, I have no link to John Harecourt.
Jason, you seem to be muddling separate men named John Harcourt, and thus confusing the identity of John Harcourt, who married Anne Scalers/Deschallers.
1. John Harcourt (1451-1485), the eldest son Robert, eldest son of Thomas Harcourt, married Anne Norreys.
2. John Harcourt (c. 1420- aft. 1495), Sheriff of Staffordshire, uncle of John (#1 above), apparently married (1) Eleanor Lewknor; married (2) Margaret Brace.
3. John Harcourt, presumed eldest son of John (#2 above), married Anne Scalers/Deschallers and died well before 1493, when his widow's IPM shows that after his death she married Giles Wellesbourne, and that her daughter Margery was betrothed to Humphrey Wellesbourne.
4. John Harcourt, bastard, of Wytney, Oxfordshire, alive in 1493 when his "daughter and heir" Margaret was abducted. There is no reason to suppose that he had a wife named Anne (you confused him with #1 above), and he was clearly not John Harcourt #3, who was already dead and buried.
Who are the parents of this Anne Norreys plz. TIA
Jason Quick
2018-07-23 21:06:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Les A Cox
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Jason Quick
By the the way he is not my bastard, I have no link to John Harecourt.
Jason, you seem to be muddling separate men named John Harcourt, and thus confusing the identity of John Harcourt, who married Anne Scalers/Deschallers.
1. John Harcourt (1451-1485), the eldest son Robert, eldest son of Thomas Harcourt, married Anne Norreys.... One thing to note is John Harcourt de Wytney (bastard)was also called "the elder" so one would think he had a younger brother named John
2. John Harcourt (c. 1420- aft. 1495), Sheriff of Staffordshire, uncle of John (#1 above), apparently married (1) Eleanor Lewknor; married (2) Margaret Brace.....What actual proof is there of the Lewknor marriage?
3. John Harcourt, presumed eldest son of John (#2 above), married Anne Scalers/Deschallers and died well before 1493, when his widow's IPM shows that after his death she married Giles Wellesbourne, and that her daughter Margery was betrothed to Humphrey Wellesbourne..... Name a source that shows a specific John Harecourt from Staffordshire being in service to the Royal Court. John Harcourt (bastard) de Wytney was in service to Richard III and served George the Duke of Clarence. The Wellesbournes were also knee deep in the War of the Roses and the ever changing Royal Court.
4. John Harcourt, bastard, of Wytney,Oxfordshire, alive in 1493 when his "daughter and heir" Margaret was abducted. There is no reason to suppose that he had a wife named Anne (you confused him with #1 above), and he was clearly not John Harcourt #3, who was already dead and buried....... Where does it say he was alive? Even the loudest naysayer of this claim now admits that John Harcourt(bastard)died before 1486. And he gets his information from talking to the deceased.
This was my original post https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/harcourt%7Csort:date/soc.genealogy.medieval/aWHunzol9PQ/7SCrRakLDAAJ It has a ton of sources you can map out and study if you have time. John the bastard had all of these titles "John Harecourte (bastard) b.c. 1536* - (de Wytney, esq., the elder, senior, Gentleman Usher of the King’s Chamber, Receiver, Keeper of the Peace of Oxfordshire"

I am just following the breadcrumbs and they don't lead me to a John Harcourt from Staffordshire
Post by Les A Cox
Who are the parents of this Anne Norreys plz. TIA
j***@gmail.com
2018-07-27 02:41:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Les A Cox
Post by j***@gmail.com
1. John Harcourt (1451-1485), the eldest son Robert, eldest son of Thomas Harcourt, married Anne Norreys.
Who are the parents of this Anne Norreys plz. TIA
For whatever it's worth, Wikipedia says Anne was the daughter of John Norreys, Keeper of the Wardrobe for King Henry VI, by his second wife Eleanor Clitherow. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Norreys_(Keeper_of_the_Wardrobe)
Jason Quick
2018-06-11 04:10:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
As time permits, I will also share the story of John Harcourt and his descent through the "Bishops' Lineage" to immigrant Samuel Mathews of Virgin
Now I understand the prior Harcourt conversations.

Is this it? https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/365031/harcourt-lewknor-conundrum-gateway-ancestor-samuel-mathews The Lewknor connection has been debunked in TAG and by Richardson. I think I have presented ample evidence before that John Harecourt de Whitney illegitimate son of Robert Harcourt KG of Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire who was knee deep in the War of the Roses and had a wife Anne and daughter Margery(cousin to the Ranton Harcourt's) would be the best candidate for the husband of Ann(e)Scalers.

You would need to provide new evidence to support your hypothesis? No remote viewing or channeling please.
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-18 16:41:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I reviewed the Harcourt lineage of John Harcourt with the ancestors, who tell me that the Hastings connection (going back to three Magna Carta barons) is mistaken. The relevant generation is that of Richard Harcourt (b. 1256) who married Margaret de Beke. His WikiTree ancestry is here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Harcourt-Family-Tree-43

The ancestors say the following:

Richard d'Harcourt (b. 1256) was not the son of William d'Harcourt (d. 1270) by his second wife Hilary de Hastings, even though William’s 1270 IPM states that Richard, a minor, was William’s son and heir. Rather, Richard was William’s GRANDson, son of William’s son William by the elder William’s first wife Alice de la Zouche.

William d’Harcourt (d. 1270) was the younger (not the elder) son of Richard d'Harcourt (d. 1258) who married Orabella, daughter of Saher de Quincy. Richard Harecourt’s son and heir was Saher (named of course for his grandfather), who was disseized in 1266 for his battlefield support of Simon de Montfort; Saher d'Harcourt's lands were then given to his brother William.

Richard d'Harcourt (husband of Orabella) was the NEPHEW (not the son) of William d'Harcourt who married Alice de Noell of Ellenhall and had no children. William had a younger brother Philip, who was the father of Richard. William and Philip were the sons of Robert d'Harcourt, but not by his second wife Isabel de Camville, who had no children.

Robert d'Harcourt was indeed the son of Ivo d'Harcourt who married Joan de Braose. Ivo d'Harcourt was indeed the son of William d'Harcourt.
William d'Harcourt was indeed the son of Anschetil FitzRobert, who was the son of Robert d’Harcourt, who was the grandson of an earlier Anschetil, through his son William, whom he established in England before the Conquest. (Anschetil d’Harcourt, the progenitor of this family, was not the son of Turchetil, contrary to what is currently shown on Wikitree.)
John Higgins
2018-06-19 00:17:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
I reviewed the Harcourt lineage of John Harcourt with the ancestors, who tell me that the Hastings connection (going back to three Magna Carta barons) is mistaken. The relevant generation is that of Richard Harcourt (b. 1256) who married Margaret de Beke. His WikiTree ancestry is here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Harcourt-Family-Tree-43
Richard d'Harcourt (b. 1256) was not the son of William d'Harcourt (d. 1270) by his second wife Hilary de Hastings, even though William’s 1270 IPM states that Richard, a minor, was William’s son and heir. Rather, Richard was William’s GRANDson, son of William’s son William by the elder William’s first wife Alice de la Zouche.
William d’Harcourt (d. 1270) was the younger (not the elder) son of Richard d'Harcourt (d. 1258) who married Orabella, daughter of Saher de Quincy. Richard Harecourt’s son and heir was Saher (named of course for his grandfather), who was disseized in 1266 for his battlefield support of Simon de Montfort; Saher d'Harcourt's lands were then given to his brother William.
Richard d'Harcourt (husband of Orabella) was the NEPHEW (not the son) of William d'Harcourt who married Alice de Noell of Ellenhall and had no children. William had a younger brother Philip, who was the father of Richard. William and Philip were the sons of Robert d'Harcourt, but not by his second wife Isabel de Camville, who had no children.
Robert d'Harcourt was indeed the son of Ivo d'Harcourt who married Joan de Braose. Ivo d'Harcourt was indeed the son of William d'Harcourt.
William d'Harcourt was indeed the son of Anschetil FitzRobert, who was the son of Robert d’Harcourt, who was the grandson of an earlier Anschetil, through his son William, whom he established in England before the Conquest. (Anschetil d’Harcourt, the progenitor of this family, was not the son of Turchetil, contrary to what is currently shown on Wikitree.)
Just to be perfectly clear, are you saying that ALL of the information after "The ancestors say the following" was provided solely by your claimed conversations with your ancestors? Is there any documentation from more conventional sources to support any of these statements? Just checking...
Thomas Bonnett
2018-06-19 09:02:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Yes it seems he is.
Anything following “My ancestors told me” or something of a similar nature should be taken as pure poppycock (To put it nicely) Nobody will ever take him serious on an Amateur/Avademic or Scholarly level with that type of talk.

Genealogy is based on Hard Cold Facts and a few good assumptions based on Sources and evidence available.
You even disregard the IPM which says ‘Son’ because your ancestor spoke to you in some Pseudo-Paranormal/Telekinetic/Mediumship State apparently told you it was Grandson regardless of the IPM saying Son.

Now I’m not one for disbelieving in the Paranormal, I’m a skeptic first and foremost and have had a couple of Scenerios which I couldn’t explain but this I just had to comment and give my 2 pence worth.

I believe you have an over active imagination and hope you are not publishing family pedigrees based on your talkings with the “deceased”.
Kind Regards
w***@gmail.com
2018-06-19 09:34:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It is not poppycock. I too have been communicating with our Harcourt ancestors. They told me that they are bored of answering questions about family history and wish to rest in peace. They added that they would provide disinformation to anyone who disturbs their peace hereafter.
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-19 20:11:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
That's actually not as crazy as it sounds. One of the cardinal rules for communicating with ancestors, derivative of the fundamental imperative to be respectful at all times, is "Don't pester ancestors with genealogical questions!"

p.s. @Thomas Bonnett: Your use of the word "disregard" would seem to be inaccurate. As I said before, it is possible to be deeply skeptical without being dismissive. For whatever it's worth, I do have a master's degree in history, and over 40 years' experience as an amateur genealogist. I'm the one who recently proved that Douglas Richardson was dead wrong about the lineage of gateway ancestor James Cudworth. The corrected lineage includes more Magna Carta barons, but loses the descent from King Edward I.
taf
2018-06-19 22:37:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
be inaccurate. As I said before, it is possible to be deeply skeptical
without being dismissive.
Possible, yes, but in this case being dismissive is exactly what is called for.
Post by j***@gmail.com
For whatever it's worth, I do have a master's degree in history, and over
40 years' experience as an amateur genealogist.
If your degree program didn't teach you that voices you hear in your head don't constitute historical sources, then it failed abysmally.

taf
Thomas Bonnett
2018-06-20 06:15:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Disregard/Discarded or Dismissed would be the correct terms I am referring to.
As you have Disregarded/Discarded and Dismissed Sources in favour of the voices in your head.
Unfortunately your degree and experience isn’t worth anything anymore. Certainly not when you are using the voices in your head to confirm or deny Sources/Evidence and other people’s work, which is what you are doing. No two ways about it.
I’m sure mediumship wasn’t taught on your degree in term of validation of Sources and to uncover new information.
It’s a complete Slap in the Face to your Degree, Experience and to other people’s work.
If I had it my way and if it were in my power and authority to rescind your degree, I would do so post haste.
Regards.
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-20 13:34:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
@TAF -- you misrepresent my position. I have never used communication with ancestors as a historical source. Why would you insinuate such a thing?

@Thomas Bonnett -- your bald statement that used "voices in my head" to "confirm or deny other people's work" would seem to be a blatant falsehood, especially if you are referring to my debunking of Douglas Richardson's incompetent Cudworth lineage. Perhaps yoou were referring to something else?

I don't suppose you have actually read the life story of Paganus de Pridias that I presented at the beginning of this thread. Wouldn't that piece of evidence (the existence of the story) be the logical starting point for a discussion or an evaluation or an attempt at a rebuttal?
Thomas Bonnett
2018-06-20 19:50:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
@TAF -- you misrepresent my position. I have never used communication with ancestors as a historical source. Why would you insinuate such a thing?
@Thomas Bonnett -- your bald statement that used "voices in my head" to "confirm or deny other people's work" would seem to be a blatant falsehood, especially if you are referring to my debunking of Douglas Richardson's incompetent Cudworth lineage. Perhaps yoou were referring to something else?
I don't suppose you have actually read the life story of Paganus de Pridias that I presented at the beginning of this thread. Wouldn't that piece of evidence (the existence of the story) be the logical starting point for a discussion or an evaluation or an attempt at a rebuttal?
It certainly is not a falsehood, You are claiming you are speaking to the dead and including these telepathic sessions in your research and have apparently been using these to verify sources and lines.
You write ''Per Harcourt's request, I followed the Harcourt lineage -- as represented at wikitree -- back through the generations, asking if it was right or wrong. I did not look at any other source as I did so, and I have never seen any work on the early Harcourts (other than the lineage shown in Douglas Richardson's books), and the only independent research I have ever done on this family involves my proposed solution to the old Harcourt-Lewknor conundrum (discussed above). ''
So, If I'm correct in my thinking and reading. You have said you have used your Mediumship/Telepathic/Pseudo-Paranormal ability to solely, without the use of Sources to confirm or deny lines apart from a Lineage from DR's Book.

You secondly dis-regard what the IPM states in favour of what your ancestor ''Told you''
''The ancestors say the following:

Richard d'Harcourt (b. 1256) was not the son of William d'Harcourt (d. 1270) by his second wife Hilary de Hastings, even though William’s 1270 IPM states that Richard, a minor, was William’s son and heir. Rather, Richard was William’s GRANDson, son of William’s son William by the elder William’s first wife Alice de la Zouche.''

''I reviewed the Harcourt lineage of John Harcourt with the ancestors, who tell me that the Hastings connection (going back to three Magna Carta barons) is mistaken.''

I'm not making bald statements here, You are doing EXACTLY what I have said you are doing. Dismissing sources based on the voices in your head.


I'm sorry but I can not reply anymore to you, This has run its course.

Kind Regards

P.S
I did click the link at the top of the page but I can not have a Logical conversation with someone who uses and accepts Mediumship/Pseudo-Paranormal Telepathy as tools for Historical Research and Genealogy.
Peter Stewart
2018-06-20 22:26:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas Bonnett
Post by j***@gmail.com
@TAF -- you misrepresent my position. I have never used communication with ancestors as a historical source. Why would you insinuate such a thing?
@Thomas Bonnett -- your bald statement that used "voices in my head" to "confirm or deny other people's work" would seem to be a blatant falsehood, especially if you are referring to my debunking of Douglas Richardson's incompetent Cudworth lineage. Perhaps yoou were referring to something else?
I don't suppose you have actually read the life story of Paganus de Pridias that I presented at the beginning of this thread. Wouldn't that piece of evidence (the existence of the story) be the logical starting point for a discussion or an evaluation or an attempt at a rebuttal?
It certainly is not a falsehood, You are claiming you are speaking to the dead and including these telepathic sessions in your research and have apparently been using these to verify sources and lines.
You write ''Per Harcourt's request, I followed the Harcourt lineage -- as represented at wikitree -- back through the generations, asking if it was right or wrong. I did not look at any other source as I did so, and I have never seen any work on the early Harcourts (other than the lineage shown in Douglas Richardson's books), and the only independent research I have ever done on this family involves my proposed solution to the old Harcourt-Lewknor conundrum (discussed above). ''
So, If I'm correct in my thinking and reading. You have said you have used your Mediumship/Telepathic/Pseudo-Paranormal ability to solely, without the use of Sources to confirm or deny lines apart from a Lineage from DR's Book.
You secondly dis-regard what the IPM states in favour of what your ancestor ''Told you''
Richard d'Harcourt (b. 1256) was not the son of William d'Harcourt (d. 1270) by his second wife Hilary de Hastings, even though William’s 1270 IPM states that Richard, a minor, was William’s son and heir. Rather, Richard was William’s GRANDson, son of William’s son William by the elder William’s first wife Alice de la Zouche.''
''I reviewed the Harcourt lineage of John Harcourt with the ancestors, who tell me that the Hastings connection (going back to three Magna Carta barons) is mistaken.''
I'm not making bald statements here, You are doing EXACTLY what I have said you are doing. Dismissing sources based on the voices in your head.
I'm sorry but I can not reply anymore to you, This has run its course.
Kind Regards
P.S
I did click the link at the top of the page but I can not have a Logical conversation with someone who uses and accepts Mediumship/Pseudo-Paranormal Telepathy as tools for Historical Research and Genealogy.
You could save yourself a lot of time and trouble by simply disregarding this subject entirely.

Why not grant him that he does converse with ancestors? This is surely a harmless delusion, and anyone convinced by it is probably chatting with imaginary beings on their own part already.

Then the question becomes, Why rely on what they have to say? Word of mouth from (living) ancestors was a principal source of information for heralds conducting visitations, and we know they frequently got things wrong. Deceased ancestors are presumably no more accurate, or rigorously truthful, than their counterparts were in life.

So why stir their ashes to obtain only a self-interested version from beyond the grave that still needs to be tested and verified from extant documents - exactly as if they had never deigned to communicate in the first place?

Peter Stewart
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-21 04:07:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
@Thomas Bonnett, if you habitually fulminate like you have been doing on this thread, you're liable to get high blood pressure.

Contrary to your misrepresentation, I did not use the ancestral communications to "confirm or deny" anything. I made no claims regarding the early Harcourt lineage, and I made no changes to their wikitree profiles. I simply reported their disagreement with the current wikitree lineage. And then you knocked down, thrashed and dismembered a straw man of your own making.


@Peter Stewart, you raise a significant question regarding the impartiality and sincerity and accuracy of the ancestors. In my experience, more recent ancestors commonly begin communication by spontaneously expressing remorse for something that plagued their conscience when they were alive. This type of behavior is not generally considered to be "self-interested."

My initial priorities have been to record the stories up to my great-great-grandparents, and to record my Schmeeckle/Schmuckle lineage back to the 17th-century progenitor in Germany, much of which I have already added to "free space" pages on wikitree, connected with a "see also" link on their wikitree profiles. Contrary to others' foam-at-the-mouth accusations near the beginning of this thread, I have not used anything from the ancestors to change anybody's wikitree profile.

For example, Mathew Hovious's conjectural ancestry of Plymouth Colony immigrant John Jenney, published in "The Genealogist," is a bit different from what the ancestors say. I have made no attempt to alter ikitree's Jenney lineage based on the ancestral communication.

More recently, especially AFTER I debunked Douglas Richardson's bogus Cudworth lineage, I began recording the stories of medieval ancestors. The list of families in the title of this thread is more a to-do list than anything else, but I have a few more snippets that are ready to share.
Matt Tompkins
2018-06-21 07:12:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
More recently, especially AFTER I debunked Douglas Richardson's bogus Cudworth lineage, I began recording the stories of medieval ancestors. The list of families in the title of this thread is more a to-do list than anything else, but I have a few more snippets that are ready to share.
What language are these snippets in?
Vance Mead
2018-06-21 10:15:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Gibberish and Balderdash.
Post by Matt Tompkins
What language are these snippets in?
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-22 04:30:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Matt Tompkins
Post by j***@gmail.com
More recently, especially AFTER I debunked Douglas Richardson's bogus Cudworth lineage, I began recording the stories of medieval ancestors. The list of families in the title of this thread is more a to-do list than anything else, but I have a few more snippets that are ready to share.
What language are these snippets in?
They are all in modern English, the same as all the stories of several generations of my father's father's German ancestry. Obviously, none of these people spoke modern English.

Sometimes there is confusion about the proper choice of a word, and I think of synonyms until the ancestor agrees on the meaning. I have indicated that in my "Ancestral Memories" free space pages at wikitree by putting the word in question in parentheses. In each of these cases, the ancestor and I agreed on the particular word to use, and then the ancestor moved on with his/her story. I don't have any explanation for how their words (and grammar) translate; it's part of the mystery of what is going on.

Two months ago, on April 18, I worked my way through the Grenville lineage, as I earlier reconstructed it at wikitree. You can access it here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Grenville-Family-Tree-8

Following are my notes from this April 18 Grenville communication:

Elizabeth Gorges [wife of Thomas Grenville] was indeed the daughter of Theobald Gorges.

William Grenville, husband of Philippa Bonville, was indeed the son of William Grenville and Thomasine Cole. (And Thomasine Cole is indeed descended from the Bodrugans, and I will be sharing the Bodrugan story after I get around to Champernoun.)

Theobald Grenville the younger, and the elder, were concerned about the story that has been remembered about despoiling the bishop’s household.

Margaret Courtenay, wife of Theobald Grenville the younger, was indeed the daughter of Hugh de Courtenay and Margaret de Bohun.

Joice Beaumont, wife of Theobald Grenville the elder, didn’t know her father, but she heard a family story about an ancestor going to Jerusalem. (The Beaumont lineage, as it currently appears at wikitree, shows that Joice Beaumont's paternal grandfather Louis de Brienne was born in the Holy Land, son of Jean de Brienne who was elected King of Jerusalem by right of his first wife.)

Theobald Grenville the elder was not the son of Henry (who didn’t have a son), but of Henry’s elder brother Bartholomew, who died when Theobald was young. Theobald never talked about his father, because there was nothing to say.
Theobald’s mother was Mary, from the de Scutney family, which was well-regarded at the time, but she imagines that it won’t be remembered now.

Hannah Vivian, wife of the elder Bartholomew Grenville, was the daughter of a man who considered himself to be a nobleman, but he was not of good estate. Bartholomew Grenville says that the significance of his story depends on understanding who was important in Devon at the time. (I then looked up the names of the Sheriffs of Devon, and then at Bartholomew Grenville’s suggestion to look at who was at the height of power, I looked up the Earls of Devon, and saw the change of house from de Redvers to Courteney.) Bartholomew Grenville was able to consider himself an ally of Courtenay, which led – as he just learned – to a later Grenville/Courtenay marriage.

Bartholomew Grenville’s father Richard didn’t consider himself to be important, but he maintained the respect of the community.

Richard’s father Richard thought of himself as important locally, but he had no ambition to be important beyond his community.

Richard’s father, another Richard, is disinclined to speak.

This Richard’s father had a family that did not live up to his expectations. Richard’s wife Adeline Beaumont asked who I was, to presume to request conversation with the Grenvilles. Richard Grenville suggested that I not try to talk to his ancestors, because they have been often imposed on by descendants. He said that awareness of his ancestry has vanished, and he will talk about his understanding of who his family was.
(The Grenville lineage at wikitree shows that this Richard Grenville's great-grandfather was the third son of the Duke of Normandy.)
taf
2018-06-22 06:26:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Two months ago, on April 18, I worked my way through the Grenville lineage,
https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Grenville-Family-Tree-8
<snip>
Post by j***@gmail.com
(The Grenville lineage at wikitree shows that this Richard Grenville's
great-grandfather was the third son of the Duke of Normandy.)
This claimed connection is nothing but Tudor/Stuart-era mythologizing. There is no evidence the first Grenville was brother of Robert fitz Hamon, as is claimed. Robert fitz Hamon was not son of Hamon Dentalis, as is claimed, and Hamon Dentalis was not son of Mauger of Corbeil, as is claimed. This just uncritically repeats a baseless Grenville fraud invented to claim the Corbeil title. It is nothing but an origin legend that is completely unsupportable, intracranial auditory hallucinations notwithstanding. Another 'win' for WikiTree.

taf
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-22 14:15:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
Post by j***@gmail.com
(The Grenville lineage at wikitree shows that this Richard Grenville's
great-grandfather was the third son of the Duke of Normandy.)
This claimed connection is nothing but Tudor/Stuart-era mythologizing. There is no evidence the first Grenville was brother of Robert fitz Hamon, as is claimed. Robert fitz Hamon was not son of Hamon Dentalis, as is claimed, and Hamon Dentalis was not son of Mauger of Corbeil, as is claimed. This just uncritically repeats a baseless Grenville fraud invented to claim the Corbeil title. It is nothing but an origin legend that is completely unsupportable, intracranial auditory hallucinations notwithstanding. Another 'win' for WikiTree.
Taf seems to be having trouble understanding plain English. I recorded the statement of Richard Grenville (the second of the name) that awareness of the ancestry of the Grenvilles has disappeared, and then mentioned that wikitree showed a Grenville descent from the family of the Dukes of Normandy. This does NOT mean that Richard Grenville claimed this illustrious descent for the Grenvilles (which he certainly did not do); rather it implies that the Normandy connection is inaccurate.

By the way, based on taf's comment observation about the Grenville origin, I went ahead and detached the alleged father of the first Richard Grenville at wikitree, adding a "disputed parents" section at the beginning of his profile.

I did not communicate with Richard (first of the name) de Greyneville before. He will now communicate in his own words (as they appear in my mind in English) as I type:

"Richard de Greyneville was a man who helped conquer the territory that William of Normandy seized. Richard was rewarded. Richard had a land that was unable to be held. Richard didn't try to hold it. Richard gave it back to the Welsh. Richard understood, because of what he did, he was revered. Richard did not deserve this reverence. Richard simply acted with prudence.

"Richard wanted to be able to start a lineage. Richard understood that his family was insignificant. Richard also understood that, because of his part, there was a feeling that Richard was one of the important men. Richard had the idea that his family would become a leading family. Richard was able to arrange a marriage for his son to the daughter of a leading family. This helped (solidify) the position of the Greyneville family. Richard didn't understand, as the centuries passed, how his family failed to become prominent."
Vance Mead
2018-06-22 14:43:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You think you’re talking with the dead
But they’re voices inside your head
You really are nuts
No ifs, ands or buts
Please consider adjusting your meds.
taf
2018-06-22 15:38:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by taf
Post by j***@gmail.com
(The Grenville lineage at wikitree shows that this Richard Grenville's
great-grandfather was the third son of the Duke of Normandy.)
This claimed connection is nothing but Tudor/Stuart-era mythologizing. There is no evidence the first Grenville was brother of Robert fitz Hamon, as is claimed. Robert fitz Hamon was not son of Hamon Dentalis, as is claimed, and Hamon Dentalis was not son of Mauger of Corbeil, as is claimed. This just uncritically repeats a baseless Grenville fraud invented to claim the Corbeil title. It is nothing but an origin legend that is completely unsupportable, intracranial auditory hallucinations notwithstanding. Another 'win' for WikiTree.
Taf seems to be having trouble understanding plain English.
No, taf doesn't. My comment was one thing and one thing only - a critique of the Grenville origin-myth line shown on WikiTree. It had nothing to do with your necromantic fantasies of eldritch postmortem communication.
Post by j***@gmail.com
By the way, based on taf's comment observation about the Grenville origin,
I went ahead and detached the alleged father of the first Richard Grenville
at wikitree, adding a "disputed parents" section at the beginning of his
profile.
Did you also detach Hamon Dentalis from Mauger of Corbeil, which connection is equally fictional?

taf
Peter Stewart
2018-06-23 00:29:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
Post by j***@gmail.com
Two months ago, on April 18, I worked my way through the Grenville lineage,
https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Grenville-Family-Tree-8
<snip>
Post by j***@gmail.com
(The Grenville lineage at wikitree shows that this Richard Grenville's
great-grandfather was the third son of the Duke of Normandy.)
This claimed connection is nothing but Tudor/Stuart-era mythologizing. There is no evidence the first Grenville was brother of Robert fitz Hamon, as is claimed. Robert fitz Hamon was not son of Hamon Dentalis, as is claimed, and Hamon Dentalis was not son of Mauger of Corbeil, as is claimed. This just uncritically repeats a baseless Grenville fraud invented to claim the Corbeil title. It is nothing but an origin legend that is completely unsupportable, intracranial auditory hallucinations notwithstanding. Another 'win' for WikiTree.
taf
This false genealogy is patently absurd going just by the material on the WikiTree page - according to the extract loaded there from 'The History of the Granville Family', Haimo Dentatus was the same man as Haimo count of Corbeil who was living in 912. This person's 'very magnificent' tomb at Corbeil was later found to be adorned with the same arms borne by the family of an exiled Stuart adherent. Marvellous forsight by the 10th-century masons, who must have been communicating with the unborn in order to have discovered late-medieval English heraldry so long before it existed.

The real Haimo, count of Corbeil, died on pilgrimage to Rome in (most probably) 967. His unrelated namesake Haimo Dentatus, seigneur of Creully, was killed in 1047. If these were the same man he was himself a revenant from the grave.

Also the asserted origin of the first Grenville from the eastern Pyrenees is absurd. If WikiTree goes on scoring 'wins' at this rate the voters of the USA might become tired enough of it to make the author their president in 2020.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2018-06-23 09:55:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by j***@gmail.com
Two months ago, on April 18, I worked my way through the Grenville lineage,
https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Grenville-Family-Tree-8
<snip>
Post by j***@gmail.com
(The Grenville lineage at wikitree shows that this Richard Grenville's
great-grandfather was the third son of the Duke of Normandy.)
This claimed connection is nothing but Tudor/Stuart-era mythologizing. There is no evidence the first Grenville was brother of Robert fitz Hamon, as is claimed. Robert fitz Hamon was not son of Hamon Dentalis, as is claimed, and Hamon Dentalis was not son of Mauger of Corbeil, as is claimed. This just uncritically repeats a baseless Grenville fraud invented to claim the Corbeil title. It is nothing but an origin legend that is completely unsupportable, intracranial auditory hallucinations notwithstanding. Another 'win' for WikiTree.
taf
This false genealogy is patently absurd going just by the material on the WikiTree page - according to the extract loaded there from 'The History of the Granville Family', Haimo Dentatus was the same man as Haimo count of Corbeil who was living in 912. This person's 'very magnificent' tomb at Corbeil was later found to be adorned with the same arms borne by the family of an exiled Stuart adherent. Marvellous forsight by the 10th-century masons, who must have been communicating with the unborn in order to have discovered late-medieval English heraldry so long before it existed.
The real Haimo, count of Corbeil, died on pilgrimage to Rome in (most probably) 967. His unrelated namesake Haimo Dentatus, seigneur of Creully, was killed in 1047. If these were the same man he was himself a revenant from the grave.
Also the asserted origin of the first Grenville from the eastern Pyrenees is absurd. If WikiTree goes on scoring 'wins' at this rate the voters of the USA might become tired enough of it to make the author their president in 2020.
Peter Stewart
Wikis of course aren't people. It is worth noting that despite this being obvious, the way people personalize them is often strangely confused. Unlike the unified groups of people we are most familiar with, such as companies, churches, boy scout troops, countries, or football teams, wikis don't have much in the way of "patriotism" or even people seeing themselves as part of them.

Therefore people expect Wikipedians to defend Wikipedia and are surprised to find that very active Wikipedians are often *more* critical and sceptical of Wikipedia than most people. There is not much of a movement or philosophy uniting people in large Wikis in my experience, apart from an interest in trying out the medium as a place to collect information they are interested in collecting. Each person is happy to improve the small thing they are working on and most do not deny that the wiki as a whole contains large amounts of nonsense.

Speaking of such a large wiki as a person is a bit like speaking about the whole internet or the whole of humanity as a person. These wikis are large scale human activities.

Of course by the way all of the above especially applies to large scale wikis which rely more on momentum than a uniting spirit. Small wikis also exist, and can be quite different to this.
Matt Tompkins
2018-06-22 06:32:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Matt Tompkins
What language are these snippets in?
They are all in modern English, the same as all the stories of several generations of my father's father's German ancestry. Obviously, none of these people spoke modern English.
Sometimes there is confusion about the proper choice of a word, and I think of synonyms until the ancestor agrees on the meaning. I have indicated that in my "Ancestral Memories" free space pages at wikitree by putting the word in question in parentheses. In each of these cases, the ancestor and I agreed on the particular word to use, and then the ancestor moved on with his/her story. I don't have any explanation for how their words (and grammar) translate; it's part of the mystery of what is going on.
Mystery is hardly the word for it. Logical impossibility would be more like it.

If they're not speaking to you in modern English, how do you understand what they're saying to you?

Even if you're understanding them by some kind of direct telepathic comprehension which transcends language, if they don't speak modern English, how then are they able to express a view on the proper choice of modern English word?

I think this must all be some kind of hoax. On that level it is actually quite amusing, though you seem to be going to extraordinary lengths just to get a bit of a laugh.

Matt Tompkins
Vance Mead
2018-06-22 06:40:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I thought at first that he had a few screws loose in his brainpan. Now I think he's trolling us.
Post by Matt Tompkins
I think this must all be some kind of hoax.
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-22 13:58:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Matt Tompkins
If they're not speaking to you in modern English, how do you understand what they're saying to you?
Even if you're understanding them by some kind of direct telepathic comprehension which transcends language, if they don't speak modern English, how then are they able to express a view on the proper choice of modern English word?
Just because there is no clear explanation doesn't mean that it isn't happening. I'm inclined to speculate about the process of thought formation involving a phase before the actual choosing of words.
Post by Matt Tompkins
I think this must all be some kind of hoax. On that level it is actually quite amusing, though you seem to be going to extraordinary lengths just to get a bit of a laugh.
I think that you are quite correct in pointing out the implausibility of your conjecture that what I am doing is a hoax. The vast majority of my recordings of ancestral communication has been around the generation of my great-great-grandparents. These were not important people, although some of them had interesting stories. I hope that you and/or others will be willing to consider the unlikelihood of me simply making up the stories of:

Prince Tobey (1820-1912) and his wife Esther Hunt, at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:ANCESTRAL_MEMORIES:_PRINCE_AND_ESTHER_TOBEY

William Joseph Coons (1833-1916) and his wife Julia Wallace, at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_William_Coons_and_Julia_Wallace

Henry Stickler (1830-1906) and his wife Jane Hibbets (this story is incomplete) at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_Henry_Stickler_and_Jane_Hibbets

George Washington Singley (1820-1894) and his wife Susanna Jellison at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_George_Singley_and_Susanna_Jellison

Jane (Roberts) Yapp (1843-1936) and William Henry Young at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_Jane_%28Roberts%29_Yapp_and_William_Henry_Young

And then there is the in-process collection of stories of my Schmückle ancestors (seven generations have been completed so far), starting at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_The_Schm%C3%BCckle_Family_in_Einod
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-19 20:37:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
@John Higgins: Per Harcourt's request, I followed the Harcourt lineage -- as represented at wikitree -- back through the generations, asking if it was right or wrong. I did not look at any other source as I did so, and I have never seen any work on the early Harcourts (other than the lineage shown in Douglas Richardson's books), and the only independent research I have ever done on this family involves my proposed solution to the old Harcourt-Lewknor conundrum (discussed above).
John Higgins
2018-06-19 21:50:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
@John Higgins: Per Harcourt's request, I followed the Harcourt lineage -- as represented at wikitree -- back through the generations, asking if it was right or wrong. I did not look at any other source as I did so, and I have never seen any work on the early Harcourts (other than the lineage shown in Douglas Richardson's books), and the only independent research I have ever done on this family involves my proposed solution to the old Harcourt-Lewknor conundrum (discussed above).
Thank you for clarifying that you did rely solely on conversations with your ancestors for your post of yesterday on the Harcourt lineage, and that you "did not look at any other source". Based on that I can make my own judgment as to the reliability of your conclusions. And, yes, it IS possible to be "deeply skeptical" and then move to being "dismissive".
Liz (Noland) Shifflett
2018-06-22 16:01:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Two months ago, on April 18, I worked my way through the Grenville lineage, as I earlier reconstructed it at wikitree. You can access it here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Grenville-Family-Tree-8
and my WikiTree to-do list grows some more.

I recently joined this Google Group and had not imagined that my first post would have been on this subject (indeed, I was working on a perfectly normal post when this issue was brought to the attention of the Magna Carta Project leaders in WikiTree). I hope to get off on a better foot after said foot has finished stomping out forest fires at WikiTree.

I would just like to point out that the "go-to" reference for WikiTree's Magna Carta Project is Douglas Richardson's Magna Carta Ancestry and Royal Ancestry. Even the word of ancestors via Visitations is examined. The word of ancestors via John Schmeeckle is not a source.

Cheers, Liz Shifflett, co-leader of
WikiTree's Magna Carta Project
taf
2018-06-22 16:56:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
I recently joined this Google Group and had not imagined that my first
post would have been on this subject
Welcome. Just for the sake of clarity, since this is confused even by long-term participants, this is not a Google Group. It just plays one on TV.

Following the demise of Deja.com (formerly DejaNews), who hosted a large Usenet archive and a posting interface, Google decided to fill the void. They acquired from a third party a large Usenet archive (which unfortunately did not include soc.genealogy.medieval) and they set up a web-based interface for each of the Usenet newsgroups that existed at the time, including soc.genealogy.medieval. They then created Google Groups to contain both the Usenet interfaces and thousands of newly-created message boards that are only found on Google. As part of their goal of making Google synonymous with internet information, they disguised the distinction so that people would think that all of Usenet was just part of Google Groups.

Thus soc.genealogy.medieval is not a Google Group, it is a Usenet group that can either be accessed indirectly through Google Groups (and formerly, via the GEN-MEDIEVAL mailing list) or directly via Usenet.

taf
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-27 01:55:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I hope to get off on a better foot after said foot has finished stomping out > > forest fires at WikiTree.
I would just like to point out that the "go-to" reference for WikiTree's Magna > Carta Project is Douglas Richardson's Magna Carta Ancestry and Royal Ancestry.
Cheers, Liz Shifflett, co-leader of
WikiTree's Magna Carta Project
Hi Liz, back at the beginning, when I was a co-leader of WikiTree's Magna Carta Project, I never thought that adherence to Douglas Richardson would be taken to the point of defying reason. Back then, I understood that Richardson relied on primary sources and also gave his sources, so competent genealogists could double-check his conclusions.

More recently, I came across Douglas Richardson's botched Cudworth/Machell lineage, and brought it up around here, and then Richardson stumbled with his attempt to "certify" the correctness of the Cudworth/Machell lineage.

Then I rebutted Richardson, as follows:

1) Richardson appears unaware that there were TWO marriages of two separate women named Mary Machell. In addition to the well-known 1611 marriage of Mary Machell to Ralph Cudworth just outside of London (where the family of John and Ursula Machell was located), there was the 1617 marriage of Mary "Mashall" of Kingston Bowsey, home of the Lewknor estate far from London where Mary (Lewknor) Machell was buried in 1604.

2) Richardson incorrectly assumes that, in the 1646 will of John Machell (son of Mathew), cosen/kinswoman can ONLY mean niece.

3) Richardson falsely states that "Mr. Bellasis indicated that Mary Machell, wife of Rev. Ralph Cudworth, was duly recorded as a daughter of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor in manuscript sources found in the College of Arms, which he styled 'C. 21, C. 26, etc.'"

Richardson, with his broken Cudworth lineage, failed to notice a relevant marriage record, misinterpreted a will, and misrepresented the contents of a secondary source. How many similar mistakes populate Richardson's books?

I'd like to suggest that WikiTree's Magna Carta Project consider re-balancing its overemphasis on Douglas Richardson's books as the "go-to reference."
Liz (Noland) Shifflett
2018-06-27 03:37:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
John, Thanks for the reminder that I still haven't finished working on Machell-1.

Despite your numerous posts, I do not believe that you ever got consensus for the change of her parents either here or in WikiTree, but I've been working on a non-WikiTree project for the past several days and may have missed something.

Also, I like to think that WikiTree's Honor Code and collaboration guidelines would ensure no one does anything to the point of defying reason. But they need to be followed to be effective & it's a big tree and things get missed.

Cheers, Liz

P.S. Just an FYI for SGM's members who are not members of the Google Group for WikiTree's Magna Carta Project members & affiliates: We have been discussing policy changes recently, but Richardson remains our go-to reference. His Magna Carta Ancestry (2011) and Royal Ancestry (2013) are the best, most comprehensive, and most accessible references to help the project achieve its goals. See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:Magna_Carta for more info about the project.

P.P.S. What's the protocol when you're talking about someone who's in the Usenet group? <Waving at Douglas Richardson and sending a big Thank You!>
Hi Liz, back at the beginning, when I was a co-leader of WikiTree's Magna Carta Project, I never thought that adherence to Douglas Richardson would be taken to the point of defying reason. . . . <snip>
Liz (Noland) Shifflett
2018-06-22 17:07:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
taf: Thanks for the welcome & the info/history. I think I now understand why there's a G2G discussion in WikiTree about how to cite a discussion here!

Cheers, Liz
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-24 21:43:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Richard Fortescue died in 1461, at the location of the Battle of St. Albans. Here is the story, as he stated, of how he died:

Richard Fortescue was a man who was unable to prevent armed conflict on his land. Richard Fortescue wanted to be respected as the lord of his land. Richard Fortescue was from a family that was renowned for an act of bravery on the battlefield. Richard Fortescue could not accept that others would turn his land into a battlefield.

Richard Fortescue wasn’t able to prevent what happened. Richard Fortescue wasn’t able to stop a man from drawing his sword. After this, the deed had to be countered. Richard Fortescue had three men with him. Richard Fortescue drew his sword, and the three men drew theirs as one.

The man who drew his sword first tried to put it back. But others had drawn. It was too late. When swords are drawn, there is no way to end without fighting or submitting.

Richard Fortescue did not attack. Richard Fortescue held his ground, with his men at his side. Richard Fortescue didn’t expect to be attacked. He imagined that the men would simply ignore him. One of the men wanted to encourage the others to stop. He thought that this was not the correct thing to do. Richard Fortescue wanted to insist that he be left in peace. He thought to say this. But one of the men decided to attack.

Richard was not a bad swordsman. Richard had the feeling that he could have won. Richard knew, if he struck down the man, others would attack. Richard had no desire to kill. He simply wanted to be left in peace. Richard fought to preserve his life. Richard knew, after the man attacked, that the man was toying with him. Richard realized that this was an expert. Richard had no hope. Richard could have submitted. Richard thought, if he submitted, he would be remembered for that. Richard then realized, if he did not submit, his son would be at the mercy of the killer.

Richard thought, if he submitted, the dishonor on his house would cripple his son. Richard knew, if he died, his son might also perish. Richard thought, if he died and his son lived, the example would sustain him. Richard fought, and Richard died.

--

Sir John Fortescue will speak. Sir John Fortescue was a man who lived according to the ancient code of honor. This code was in the process of disintegrating. The abandonment of this code was an issue that was related to the problem of a king who would not use his power. The king was unable to make difficult decisions. With this inability, the nobles grew bold. The code of honor that restrained the nobles needed to be held by the king. Without this, the code became another way of losing.

Sir John Fortescue knew, after his son was struck down on his own property, there would be an accounting. Sir John Fortescue approached the man who had killed his son. Sir John Fortescue spat in the man’s face. This, if Sir John had been a younger man, would have created instant conflict. But Sir John’s age protected him. Sir John realized that there might never be a court of justice. Sir John understood that the men who struck his son down were intent on seizing the king. This meant that they would also seize justice, and there would be no justice. Sir John was able to walk away. The men left. There was no attempt to communicate.
P J Evans
2018-06-25 01:06:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Richard Fortescue was a man who was unable to prevent armed conflict on his land. Richard Fortescue wanted to be respected as the lord of his land. Richard Fortescue was from a family that was renowned for an act of bravery on the battlefield. Richard Fortescue could not accept that others would turn his land into a battlefield.
Richard Fortescue wasn’t able to prevent what happened. Richard Fortescue wasn’t able to stop a man from drawing his sword. After this, the deed had to be countered. Richard Fortescue had three men with him. Richard Fortescue drew his sword, and the three men drew theirs as one.
The man who drew his sword first tried to put it back. But others had drawn. It was too late. When swords are drawn, there is no way to end without fighting or submitting.
Richard Fortescue did not attack. Richard Fortescue held his ground, with his men at his side. Richard Fortescue didn’t expect to be attacked. He imagined that the men would simply ignore him. One of the men wanted to encourage the others to stop. He thought that this was not the correct thing to do. Richard Fortescue wanted to insist that he be left in peace. He thought to say this. But one of the men decided to attack.
Richard was not a bad swordsman. Richard had the feeling that he could have won. Richard knew, if he struck down the man, others would attack. Richard had no desire to kill. He simply wanted to be left in peace. Richard fought to preserve his life. Richard knew, after the man attacked, that the man was toying with him. Richard realized that this was an expert. Richard had no hope. Richard could have submitted. Richard thought, if he submitted, he would be remembered for that. Richard then realized, if he did not submit, his son would be at the mercy of the killer.
Richard thought, if he submitted, the dishonor on his house would cripple his son. Richard knew, if he died, his son might also perish. Richard thought, if he died and his son lived, the example would sustain him. Richard fought, and Richard died.
--
Sir John Fortescue will speak. Sir John Fortescue was a man who lived according to the ancient code of honor. This code was in the process of disintegrating. The abandonment of this code was an issue that was related to the problem of a king who would not use his power. The king was unable to make difficult decisions. With this inability, the nobles grew bold. The code of honor that restrained the nobles needed to be held by the king. Without this, the code became another way of losing.
Sir John Fortescue knew, after his son was struck down on his own property, there would be an accounting. Sir John Fortescue approached the man who had killed his son. Sir John Fortescue spat in the man’s face. This, if Sir John had been a younger man, would have created instant conflict. But Sir John’s age protected him. Sir John realized that there might never be a court of justice. Sir John understood that the men who struck his son down were intent on seizing the king. This meant that they would also seize justice, and there would be no justice. Sir John was able to walk away. The men left. There was no attempt to communicate.
This is NOT genealogy and doesn't belong in this group.
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-26 13:49:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Anschetil was the medieval progenitor of the Harcourt family. His wikitree profile, showing him as the son of Turchetil, is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Harcourt-18

Anschetil has told me that Turchetil was actually his adoptive father. Here is Anschetil's story, as recorded over the past few days:

(June 23, 2018) Anschetil was a man who had a father who was a knight. Anschetil understood that his father was a good knight. Anschetil wanted to be the way his father was. Anschetil understood that, if he tried, he would be able to be a good knight. Anschetil understood, because of his ability, that he would be able to live the life of a nobleman. Anschetil knew that, in his time, men with ability had the capability to rise. This is what Anschetil expected.

Anschetil understood, after he became a knight, that he would be expected to live in a castle. Anschetil wanted to live away from a castle. A castle had hard floors. A castle had no sunlight. A castle was uncomfortable. Anschetil understood, if he wanted to be a knight, that living in a castle was necessary.

Anschetil understood, after becoming a knight, that sometimes a knight was not able to decide what he would do. Sometimes the knight was ordered to do something that he thought wasn’t correct. This made Anschetil very nervous. Anschetil hoped that his lord would not expect his knight to do things that were against the teaching of the Church.

Anschetil was able to become a knight in the service of a man who didn’t expect his knights to do bad things. Anschetil understood, after becoming a knight, that he would not be able to control his life. He would always be under the command of a higher knight. This was something that Anschetil hadn’t thought about. Anschetil understood that it would be necessary to be a high-level man in order to have any say in what the decisions were.

Anschetil was under the impression that his father was unable to advance. Anschetil knew that his father did not have land. This meant that his father had to live in the castle of another man. This was honorable. But this was not desirable. Anschetil understood that his father would have little to give him. Anschetil also understood that, if he was able to obtain land, he would be able to have his own castle. Anschetil didn’t want to live in a castle. But Anschetil understood that a castle was the mark of a man who made his own decisions.

Anschetil wanted to be a man with followers. Anschetil understood, if he was to be a successful knight, he would have to be able to inspire others. This did not come naturally. Anschetil had to work to find a way to make others want to do what Anschetil wanted them to do.
--
(June 24, 2018) Anschetil wanted to be able to live in the way that he saw. Anschetil understood that the lord of a castle must live in the castle. Anschetil understood that, if a man didn’t live in a castle, he was never safe. Anschetil came from a family where the people did not live in a castle. Anschetil had a father who was very strong. This meant that he was chosen to become a knight. Anschetil did not live in a castle. Anschetil had visits from his father. Anschetil understood, because of his father, that he would have an opportunity to become a knight also. This meant that other boys were inclined to favor him. Anschetil learned how to be a leader, without having formal training.

Anschetil understood, after it was too late, that his decision to become a knight was irreversible. Anschetil would always be bound to a lord. This meant, for Anschetil, that he would never be able to make his own decisions. Anschetil thought of choosing a wife. Anschetil understood, because he was a knight, that he had to have the permission of his lord to marry. This was something that lords gave to knights who had served for a long time. Anschetil understood, because of this, that he would not have a family until he was old.

Anschetil understood, after he became a knight, that he would be required to have a servant. Anschetil, without any thought, chose a boy who was able to become a knight. This meant that Anschetil had a follower. Anschetil understood, because many knights didn’t try to help their servants learn, that the servant was often not very loyal. Anschetil understood that he had the opportunity to practice helping loyalty develop.

(6/25/2018) Anschetil wasn’t able to think about the things that he wanted to do. Anschetil understands that men in the time that John lives in do things because they want to. Anschetil never had this opportunity. Anschetil understood that a knight had to be ready at any time to serve his lord. Anschetil wanted to have the ability to think about his own preferences. Anschetil wanted to be able to live without the need to ask for permission to marry. Anschetil understood, if he was able to obey, he would gradually get more freedom. This is what happened.

(6/26/18) Anschetil wanted to have the permission of his lord. Anschetil asked for the boon of marriage. Anschetil understood, because of what he asked, that he would be dependent. An unmarried knight could easily find another lord. This often happened. But a married knight was under the compulsion of protecting his wife. This meant that he could not simply leave. He had to have an ability to provide regular protection. A woman without sufficient protection was a target for rape. Anschetil understood this point, and decided that he would forego the freedom of being a knight without a wife, for the hope of having a son.

(6/26/18) Anschetil will describe the process the led to Anschetil becoming the adopted son of Terchetil. Anschetil was under the authority of Terchetil. Anschetil understood that Terchetil had a son. Anschetil knew, after several months, that Terchetil despaired of having a grandson. Terchetil understood that his son could not make a son.

Anschetil understood, because of this situation, Terchetil was unable to continue. Terchetil understood that his family would be extinct. Terchetil understood, after realizing this, that he could adopt a son. Terchetil understood, that by adopting a son, he would be able to continue his lineage. Terchetil didn’t thing of this as being the same. But Terchetil understood that his name would be continued. Terchitil decided to have this ceremony. Anschetil had become trusted and Terchetil had just given authority to Anschetil to take a wife. This was the situation that was in process.
Terchetil understood that his son would continue as lord of his manor. Terchetil also understood that his son would not be able to have a child. This meant that Anschetil would become the heir of Terchetil. Otherwise, the land would revert to the King of France.
Vance Mead
2018-06-26 14:48:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Even worse than your delusion that you are speaking with the dead is your pedestrian prose. It's like a very bad novel for 10 year olds.
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-26 17:45:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Vance, one has to wonder at your motivation. Thought question: Why (other than being paid) would anyone bother to be so persistently insulting?
s***@mindspring.com
2018-06-27 14:16:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
From beyond that mysterious veil where the dead reside, and occasionally amuse themselves by watching the antics of the living, Anschetil turned to Turchetil and said, "Who IS this guy who keeps talking to himself as if somebody else were there, and why is he saying these crazy things about us?"

(I wanted to add to the growing saga, but this is as far as I got before extreme boredom gave me a serious case of writer's block.)

Stewart Baldwin
Vance Mead
2018-06-27 15:14:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I for one think the Dead should be Grateful:

St Stephen will remain, all he's lost he shall regain.
From beyond that mysterious veil where the dead reside...
P J Evans
2018-06-26 18:28:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Anschetil was the medieval progenitor of the Harcourt family. His wikitree profile, showing him as the son of Turchetil, is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Harcourt-18
[ much fiction snipped ]

I recommend that *you* get a blog somewhere to post your stories. They don't belong in this newsgroup.
Jason Quick
2018-06-26 20:18:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by P J Evans
Post by j***@gmail.com
Anschetil was the medieval progenitor of the Harcourt family. His wikitree profile, showing him as the son of Turchetil, is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Harcourt-18
[ much fiction snipped ]
I recommend that *you* get a blog somewhere to post your stories. They don't belong in this newsgroup.
He has one. http://earthwarning.org/index.php/contact/ He talks to the Earth and Moon and records their conversations...Ironically in the same style.
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-27 01:35:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Quick
Post by P J Evans
I recommend that *you* get a blog somewhere to post your stories. They don't belong in this newsgroup.
He has one. http://earthwarning.org/index.php/contact/ He talks to the Earth and Moon and records their conversations...Ironically in the same style.
@Jason Quick, thanks for bringing that up, but obviously I don't post medieval ancestors' stories there.

@PJ Evans, you continue to push the fiction that I am writing fiction.
P J Evans
2018-06-27 14:54:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Jason Quick
Post by P J Evans
I recommend that *you* get a blog somewhere to post your stories. They don't belong in this newsgroup.
He has one. http://earthwarning.org/index.php/contact/ He talks to the Earth and Moon and records their conversations...Ironically in the same style.
@Jason Quick, thanks for bringing that up, but obviously I don't post medieval ancestors' stories there.
@PJ Evans, you continue to push the fiction that I am writing fiction.
If you're claiming that your ancestors are talking to you, and telling you things that are contradicted by documents from that period, it is most definitely fiction.
It is NOT genealogy, and does NOT belong in this group.
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-27 18:36:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
If you're claiming that your ancestors are talking to you, and telling you > things that are contradicted by documents from that period, it is most
definitely fiction.
This would seem to be an example of weak or faulty reasoning. You seem to think that "documents from that period" should be taken at face value, and should never be contradicted. Without the ability to judiciously analyze primary sources and identify potential errors or falsehoods, you're liable to stumble into genealogical pitfalls. Perhaps you could tell me which genealogical documents I contradicted? Are you just making that up?
It is NOT genealogy, and does NOT belong in this group.
Why such a strident attitude? Why bother to respond at all? You and others, instead of the constant outpouring of rudeness, could just skip over this thread, or read it silently, or actually engage with what I am putting forth. I'll grant that you're not as offensive as some others, so perhaps it's not a useless gesture to mention that Socratic dialogue is also an option. (And that is what I had in mind when I earlier said that it is possible to be deeply skeptical without being dismissive.)
Andrew Lancaster
2018-06-27 22:16:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
If you're claiming that your ancestors are talking to you, and telling you > things that are contradicted by documents from that period, it is most
definitely fiction.
This would seem to be an example of weak or faulty reasoning. You seem to think that "documents from that period" should be taken at face value, and should never be contradicted. Without the ability to judiciously analyze primary sources and identify potential errors or falsehoods, you're liable to stumble into genealogical pitfalls. Perhaps you could tell me which genealogical documents I contradicted? Are you just making that up?
It is NOT genealogy, and does NOT belong in this group.
Why such a strident attitude? Why bother to respond at all? You and others, instead of the constant outpouring of rudeness, could just skip over this thread, or read it silently, or actually engage with what I am putting forth. I'll grant that you're not as offensive as some others, so perhaps it's not a useless gesture to mention that Socratic dialogue is also an option. (And that is what I had in mind when I earlier said that it is possible to be deeply skeptical without being dismissive.)
John as with any metaphysical or supernatural explanation, ie one which does not rely on the type of evidence other people can verify etc, the reason it should not be used in rational discussions stems from the basic property I just described. If there is no evidence worth discussing, then there is no discussion worth having.

The argument for being methodologically sceptical about all types of proposals of invisible causes, in all serious endeavours, was made by Francis Bacon some time back, and the results in disciplines which followed his advice speak for themselves.

Worthwhile discussion should be about information of a type which other people in the discussion can also go and check or understand based on personal experiences etc.

This is of course not any kind of proof that causes without evidence are all wrong, just that there is no point discussing them.
Vance Mead
2018-06-28 05:28:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Your argument is a false dichotomy: either we would accept original records at face value or we should silently accept your imaginary conversations.

There is a lot of territory between those two extremes. We can treat original documents with proper scepticism, and we can refuse to treat you seriously.




You seem to think that "documents from that period" should be taken at face value, and should never be contradicted.
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-29 17:21:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vance Mead
Your argument is a false dichotomy: either we would accept original records at face value or we should silently accept your imaginary conversations.
Vance Mead, I see that you are now moving up to the fabrication of straw men. I never made any such argument.
Vance Mead
2018-06-29 17:28:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Straw men?

"You seem to think that "documents from that period" should be taken at face value, and should never be contradicted."
j***@gmail.com
2018-06-29 17:46:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vance Mead
Straw men?
"You seem to think that "documents from that period" should be taken at face value, and should never be contradicted."
With that statement, I was responding to P J Evans' implicit assertion that anything that contradicts a written record is "fiction." My point was that written records often need to be judiciously interpreted.

P J Evans didn't give an example of where any of the ancestral memories that I recorded actually contradict a written record, but the obvious example follows:

"Richard d'Harcourt (b. 1256) was not the son of William d'Harcourt (d. 1270) by his second wife Hilary de Hastings, even though William’s 1270 IPM states that Richard, a minor, was William’s son and heir. Rather, Richard was William’s GRANDson, son of William’s son William by the elder William’s first wife Alice de la Zouche."

The 1270 IPM states that young Richard d'Harcourt was William's son and heir. If I understand P J Evans' point of view correctly, he thinks it is inconceivable that young Richard was actually William's GRANDson (by his first wife). Do you also think this is inconceivable?

Even if you are predisposed to dismiss the ancestral memories as "gibberish" or "poppycock," the fact remains that, because of what I have shared, others can now review the Harcourt lineage and test a hypothesis that they probably haven't thought of before. Some will find that worthwhile.
Vance Mead
2018-06-29 18:01:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
All opinions are equal but some opinions are more equal than others.

The difference between you and Douglas Richardson is quite simple. His opinions are based on examination of source material. You might disagree with his conclusions, but he provides citations so that you can examine them and decide for yourself. Your conclusions are based on conversations with people who have been dead for 500 years. It is impossible to examine your sources except with psychoanalysis.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Even if you are predisposed to dismiss the ancestral memories as "gibberish" or "poppycock," the fact remains that, because of what I have shared, others can now review the Harcourt lineage and test a hypothesis that they probably haven't thought of before. Some will find that worthwhile.
taf
2018-06-29 21:37:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Even if you are predisposed to dismiss the ancestral memories as "gibberish"
or "poppycock," the fact remains that, because of what I have shared, others
can now review the Harcourt lineage and test a hypothesis that they probably
haven't thought of before. Some will find that worthwhile.
There are more useful ways to inspire interest and discussion in the genealogy of medieval families than to spew aural hallucinations. Discussion of actual historical sources, for example.

taf
Vance Mead
2018-06-30 05:44:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Working through medieval records in Latin is hard work that provides small, incremental rewards. Daydreaming about conversations with one's ancestors is easy and they will tell you everything you
want to know.

It is better to go one inch in the right direction than ten miles in the wrong direction.
Post by taf
There are more useful ways to inspire interest and discussion in the genealogy of medieval families than to spew aural hallucinations. Discussion of actual historical sources, for example.
j***@gmail.com
2018-08-11 16:16:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Here is the rest of Anschetil's story, continuing from my post of June 26:

(July 8, 2018) Anschetil was unable to complete the formal adoption. It was scheduled for a date, but Terchetil died. Terchetil was unable to ensure that Anschetil would inherit. Terchetil understood that his intention would be honored. Anschetil was young, and had no knowledge of who would decide. Anschetil was unable to do anything. Anschetil simply had to wait.

Anschetil understood that, because of the situation, others were inclined to pressure Anschetil. Anschetil was able to discern that one of the men who approached Anschetil was of the opinion that Anschetil needed a patron. This man understood that Terchetil was Anschetil’s patron. This man was not a good man. Anschetil had to decide whether to accept this man or risk losing what had been promised him. Anschetil chose to accept.

Anschetil didn’t regret his choice. The man died very shortly after Anschetil was approved as the holder of Terchetil his land [as Anschetil would say]. Anschetil understood, because of how this happened, that Anschetil was now independent. Anschetil owed loyalty to the king. Anschetil understood that this meant that Anschetil should never raise a sword against the king or his servants or men. This was something that Anschetil expected to never be a problem. The king did not interfere with the rights of the nobles. Anschetil, because he now was a landowner, was considered a noble.

(July 9, 2018) Anschetil was able to establish a lineage. Anschetil married a woman from a family of knights. His wife was able to provide for his family, as the mistress of his household. This was all that Anschetil expected. Anschetil understood that because of his origin, he was very fortunate.

(July 11, 2018) Anschetil will talk about how Anschetil arranged to make a dynasty. Anschetil was able to ensure that his son moved to England. Anschetil ensured this by cooperating with the English king. This king was before the Conquest. This meant that Anschetil was able to participate in the Conquest and ensure that the holdings of his son were protected. Anschetil was very fortunate.

Anschetil expected the new King to invite Anschetil to settle in England. However, Anschetil was required to stay in his homeland. The king wanted to have younger men. Anschetil was gettling old, and was not inclined to heed the opinion of a younger king. So Anschetil stayed in France and Anschetil’s son retained his holding.

(July 13, 2018) Anschetil wanted to be able to see his grandson. Anschetil understood that, because of the requirement of the King, Anschetil should not enter England. Anschetil hoped that his grandson would visit France. Anschetil understood, if this happened, his grandson would consider staying. Anschetil did not think that France was a better location. Anschetil hoped that his grandson would decide to stay in England. Anschetil understood, if his grandson inherited all of his father’s land, he would have the opportunity to settle in France. However, Anschetil thought that his son would give the land in France to a younger son. This is all that Anschetil knows.

Anschetil will say three more things. Anschetil was able to start a dynasty. Aschetil understood that, because of this, Anschetil would be viewed as a progenitor. However, the name got fixed as Harcourt, and Anschetil has been forgotten.

Anschetil understands that, because of this, descendants are inclined to look at another man as the progenitor. Anschetil does not want to detract from his great-grandson. Anschetil looks forward to hearing the story of his great-grandson.

Anschetil understands that the status of a progenitor usually goes together with communicating with descendants. Anschetil supposes that Harcourt did this.
JBrand
2018-08-11 19:10:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
(July 8, 2018) Anschetil was unable to complete the formal adoption. It was scheduled for a date, but Terchetil died. Terchetil was unable to ensure that Anschetil would inherit. Terchetil understood that his intention would be honored. Anschetil was young, and had no knowledge of who would decide. Anschetil was unable to do anything. Anschetil simply had to wait.
Anschetil understood that, because of the situation, others were inclined to pressure Anschetil. Anschetil was able to discern that one of the men who approached Anschetil was of the opinion that Anschetil needed a patron. This man understood that Terchetil was Anschetil’s patron. This man was not a good man. Anschetil had to decide whether to accept this man or risk losing what had been promised him. Anschetil chose to accept.
Anschetil didn’t regret his choice. The man died very shortly after Anschetil was approved as the holder of Terchetil his land [as Anschetil would say]. Anschetil understood, because of how this happened, that Anschetil was now independent. Anschetil owed loyalty to the king. Anschetil understood that this meant that Anschetil should never raise a sword against the king or his servants or men. This was something that Anschetil expected to never be a problem. The king did not interfere with the rights of the nobles. Anschetil, because he now was a landowner, was considered a noble.
(July 9, 2018) Anschetil was able to establish a lineage. Anschetil married a woman from a family of knights. His wife was able to provide for his family, as the mistress of his household. This was all that Anschetil expected. Anschetil understood that because of his origin, he was very fortunate.
(July 11, 2018) Anschetil will talk about how Anschetil arranged to make a dynasty. Anschetil was able to ensure that his son moved to England. Anschetil ensured this by cooperating with the English king. This king was before the Conquest. This meant that Anschetil was able to participate in the Conquest and ensure that the holdings of his son were protected. Anschetil was very fortunate.
Anschetil expected the new King to invite Anschetil to settle in England. However, Anschetil was required to stay in his homeland. The king wanted to have younger men. Anschetil was gettling old, and was not inclined to heed the opinion of a younger king. So Anschetil stayed in France and Anschetil’s son retained his holding.
(July 13, 2018) Anschetil wanted to be able to see his grandson. Anschetil understood that, because of the requirement of the King, Anschetil should not enter England. Anschetil hoped that his grandson would visit France. Anschetil understood, if this happened, his grandson would consider staying. Anschetil did not think that France was a better location. Anschetil hoped that his grandson would decide to stay in England. Anschetil understood, if his grandson inherited all of his father’s land, he would have the opportunity to settle in France. However, Anschetil thought that his son would give the land in France to a younger son. This is all that Anschetil knows.
Anschetil will say three more things. Anschetil was able to start a dynasty. Aschetil understood that, because of this, Anschetil would be viewed as a progenitor. However, the name got fixed as Harcourt, and Anschetil has been forgotten.
Anschetil understands that, because of this, descendants are inclined to look at another man as the progenitor. Anschetil does not want to detract from his great-grandson. Anschetil looks forward to hearing the story of his great-grandson.
Anschetil understands that the status of a progenitor usually goes together with communicating with descendants. Anschetil supposes that Harcourt did this.
OH GOD.
Vance Mead
2018-08-12 13:25:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JBrand
OH GOD.
As the actress said to the bishop.
Matthew Langley
2018-08-20 20:57:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
(July 8, 2018) Anschetil was unable to complete the formal adoption. It was scheduled for a date, but Terchetil died. Terchetil was unable to ensure that Anschetil would inherit. Terchetil understood that his intention would be honored. Anschetil was young, and had no knowledge of who would decide. Anschetil was unable to do anything. Anschetil simply had to wait.
Anschetil understood that, because of the situation, others were inclined to pressure Anschetil. Anschetil was able to discern that one of the men who approached Anschetil was of the opinion that Anschetil needed a patron. This man understood that Terchetil was Anschetil’s patron. This man was not a good man. Anschetil had to decide whether to accept this man or risk losing what had been promised him. Anschetil chose to accept.
Anschetil didn’t regret his choice. The man died very shortly after Anschetil was approved as the holder of Terchetil his land [as Anschetil would say]. Anschetil understood, because of how this happened, that Anschetil was now independent. Anschetil owed loyalty to the king. Anschetil understood that this meant that Anschetil should never raise a sword against the king or his servants or men. This was something that Anschetil expected to never be a problem. The king did not interfere with the rights of the nobles. Anschetil, because he now was a landowner, was considered a noble.
(July 9, 2018) Anschetil was able to establish a lineage. Anschetil married a woman from a family of knights. His wife was able to provide for his family, as the mistress of his household. This was all that Anschetil expected. Anschetil understood that because of his origin, he was very fortunate.
(July 11, 2018) Anschetil will talk about how Anschetil arranged to make a dynasty. Anschetil was able to ensure that his son moved to England. Anschetil ensured this by cooperating with the English king. This king was before the Conquest. This meant that Anschetil was able to participate in the Conquest and ensure that the holdings of his son were protected. Anschetil was very fortunate.
Anschetil expected the new King to invite Anschetil to settle in England. However, Anschetil was required to stay in his homeland. The king wanted to have younger men. Anschetil was gettling old, and was not inclined to heed the opinion of a younger king. So Anschetil stayed in France and Anschetil’s son retained his holding.
(July 13, 2018) Anschetil wanted to be able to see his grandson. Anschetil understood that, because of the requirement of the King, Anschetil should not enter England. Anschetil hoped that his grandson would visit France. Anschetil understood, if this happened, his grandson would consider staying. Anschetil did not think that France was a better location. Anschetil hoped that his grandson would decide to stay in England. Anschetil understood, if his grandson inherited all of his father’s land, he would have the opportunity to settle in France. However, Anschetil thought that his son would give the land in France to a younger son. This is all that Anschetil knows.
Anschetil will say three more things. Anschetil was able to start a dynasty. Aschetil understood that, because of this, Anschetil would be viewed as a progenitor. However, the name got fixed as Harcourt, and Anschetil has been forgotten.
Anschetil understands that, because of this, descendants are inclined to look at another man as the progenitor. Anschetil does not want to detract from his great-grandson. Anschetil looks forward to hearing the story of his great-grandson.
Anschetil understands that the status of a progenitor usually goes together with communicating with descendants. Anschetil supposes that Harcourt did this.
This is not genealogy, this is fan fiction.
wjhonson
2018-08-13 19:03:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
and the people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bat
j***@gmail.com
2018-08-27 02:17:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
(Bishop Tobias Mathews was the father of immigrant Samuel Mathews of Virginia. His wife Frances Barlow was descended, through her mother's mother, from the Harcourts.)


(Aug. 26, 2018) Bishop Tobey Mathews is speaking, if that is the correct word. Bishop Tobey Mathews will simply refer to himself as Bishop. Bishop understood, before he died, that he would be able to communicate with descendants. Bishop understood that descendants would have the choice. Bishop also understood that he had the choice to communicate with ancestors. Bishop knew, from an early age, that he could communicate with his mother. This was because his mother died when he was three years old. Bishop understood, because of this experience, that there was a clear reason for this. Children who lost the parents had the ability to continue in their time of need.

Bishop never thought beyond this. Bishop simply understood that this was common. Bishop understood, because of his role in the Church, that Bishop had to accept the accepted teaching on this. This was simple: The ability existed, so God must have had a reason. Bishop understood, because of this way of thinking, that people would think of rational explanations. This is what happened.

Bishop understood, after talking to one man, that some people had the experience of counseling ancestors. This was a shock. Ancestors were to be respected. This was universally accepted. Giving counsel went counter to a general attitude of respect, or at least Bishop thought so. Bishop later thought that giving aid to one in need is always a gesture of respect. But Bishop was never comfortable with the thought of counseling an ancestor.

Bishop will clarify. Counseling an ancestor means giving advice related to a problem in a family relationship. If a living descendant has a grandfather who could not compel the obedience of his wife, for example, the living descendant had to accommodate the discord when trying to communicate with his grandparents. This could lead to a situation where the living descendant gave advice to the grandparents, allowing them to coexist while not denying either one communication with the grandchild.

Bishop understood, after learning about the ability to communicate with ancestors, that he could ask ancestors about family legends. Bishop discovered that his family was not from where the coat of arms said. (There were two Mathew coats of arms, and Bishop’s family began using the coat from the wrong branch.) This surprised Bishop. Bishop understood that the Mathew family was Welsh. And this was certainly what Bishop found. Bishop understood that his family was from a landowning class. Bishop understood that in Wales, the social structure was different. Bishop found that some of his ancestors weren’t Welsh. And this surprised Bishop.
P J Evans
2018-08-27 16:36:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
(Bishop Tobias Mathews was the father of immigrant Samuel Mathews of Virginia. His wife Frances Barlow was descended, through her mother's mother, from the Harcourts.)
(Aug. 26, 2018) Bishop Tobey Mathews is speaking, if that is the correct word. Bishop Tobey Mathews will simply refer to himself as Bishop. Bishop understood, before he died, that he would be able to communicate with descendants. Bishop understood that descendants would have the choice. Bishop also understood that he had the choice to communicate with ancestors. Bishop knew, from an early age, that he could communicate with his mother. This was because his mother died when he was three years old. Bishop understood, because of this experience, that there was a clear reason for this. Children who lost the parents had the ability to continue in their time of need.
Bishop never thought beyond this. Bishop simply understood that this was common. Bishop understood, because of his role in the Church, that Bishop had to accept the accepted teaching on this. This was simple: The ability existed, so God must have had a reason. Bishop understood, because of this way of thinking, that people would think of rational explanations. This is what happened.
Bishop understood, after talking to one man, that some people had the experience of counseling ancestors. This was a shock. Ancestors were to be respected. This was universally accepted. Giving counsel went counter to a general attitude of respect, or at least Bishop thought so. Bishop later thought that giving aid to one in need is always a gesture of respect. But Bishop was never comfortable with the thought of counseling an ancestor.
Bishop will clarify. Counseling an ancestor means giving advice related to a problem in a family relationship. If a living descendant has a grandfather who could not compel the obedience of his wife, for example, the living descendant had to accommodate the discord when trying to communicate with his grandparents. This could lead to a situation where the living descendant gave advice to the grandparents, allowing them to coexist while not denying either one communication with the grandchild.
Bishop understood, after learning about the ability to communicate with ancestors, that he could ask ancestors about family legends. Bishop discovered that his family was not from where the coat of arms said. (There were two Mathew coats of arms, and Bishop’s family began using the coat from the wrong branch.) This surprised Bishop. Bishop understood that the Mathew family was Welsh. And this was certainly what Bishop found. Bishop understood that his family was from a landowning class. Bishop understood that in Wales, the social structure was different. Bishop found that some of his ancestors weren’t Welsh. And this surprised Bishop.
Please post your fiction on your own blog. It DOES NOT belong here.
Richard Smith
2018-08-27 22:41:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by P J Evans
[cut lots of shit]
Please post your fiction on your own blog. It DOES NOT belong here.
Whilst I completely agree, I get the impression I'm not alone in having
kill-filled John Schmeeckle. I only get to see his deranged ramblings
if someone else responds to them. Why not kill-file him yourself, then
you won't have to read what the psychotic wanker has to say for himself
either.

Richard
P J Evans
2018-09-04 22:42:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Smith
Post by P J Evans
[cut lots of shit]
Please post your fiction on your own blog. It DOES NOT belong here.
Whilst I completely agree, I get the impression I'm not alone in having
kill-filled John Schmeeckle. I only get to see his deranged ramblings
if someone else responds to them. Why not kill-file him yourself, then
you won't have to read what the psychotic wanker has to say for himself
either.
Richard
Does't seem to be available for those of us using Google groups.
j***@gmail.com
2018-09-04 21:19:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Here is the story of Anschetil's son William, ancestor of the Harcourts.

(July 23, 2018) William was the son of Anschetil. William knew, before he was of age, that he would live in England. Anschetil had a connection in England. Anschetil understood that William, the Duke, intended to become the King of England. Anschetil understood, if he was able to establish a son, he would be able to ensure the well-being of his family. William was chosen to be the son who would be established. William was not the eldest. William had a brother. William knew, because of his brother, that he would not receive the family’s land in France. William knew, after he agreed to settle in England, that he would have to be careful. William understood, after he settled, that his fellow landowners would help the Englishman who claimed to be King. This meant that William had to be able to not (alienate) his neighbors.

William understood, after the Conquest, that he had been very lucky. The English (claimant) to the throne was killed. That meant that there would not be a serious struggle. Each county would succumb. William understood, after the Norman leader spoke, that William was going to be able to hold his land. This meant that William was able to find a wife.

(July 26, 2018) William had three problems. William understood that he was not a native. William had neighbors who resented him. William had to prove that he was loyal. These were William’s three problems.

William understood that, if he wanted to be accepted, he had to ingratiate himself with his neighbors. William also understood that his neighbors resented the thought of the Conquest. William, before the Conquest, had issues with one of his neighbors. This led to a later issue, that wasn’t settled. This was eventually decided by a Norman. William had to appeal to the authority of the Conqueror. This is how two of the three problems came together.

(August 5, 2018)
William knew, after the Conquest, that one of his neighbors would lose his land. William understood, as a member of a Norman family, he had the opportunity to receive the land. William, without thinking, sought to get the land. This led the man to oppose William.

William understood, if this was going to be resolved, William would have to find a way to help the man. William, without asking, told the Norman lieutenant that he would not give the land to the previous owner. This had the result of William being granted the land. And this led to the problem.
William didn’t want to tell the previous owner to leave. William had his own home. William understood, if he was going to be able to live with his neighbors, he had to be perceived as just. William also understood, if he was going to be respected as a Norman, that he would have to make the man leave. This was William’s problem.

(Aug. 18, 2018) William wanted to be able to encourage the neighbor. William understood that the neighbor was bitter. William knew, if it came to force, the neighbor would be killed. William understood, if the neighbor was killed, William would be remembered. This is what William wanted to avoid.
William understood, after there was a meeting of leading men, that William was seen as a collaborator. This meant that William was mistrusted. William understood, after this, that William would have to make sure that the Norman lieutenant was of the opinion that William was trustworthy. This meant that William was indeed a collaborator, even though he had not intended to become one.

William wanted to be able to make the owner of the land leave. William knew that the Norman lieutenant was observing. William also knew that the community was observing. William was of the opinion that he would be able to help maintain good order. William understood, after he was unable to convince the owner to leave, that he would have to use force.

William decided to move little by little. William began by telling peasants that they were his. This meant that William could tell them to move. And William understood that unwilling peasants would make a serious problem. So William simply announced that William intended to move some of the peasants. This was received with silence. William did not expect anything else.

(Aug. 24, 2018) William didn’t think that he would be able to move all of the peasants. He thought that he would be able to move some of them. Then the former owner would insist that the others stay. And this is what happened. William relocated one village. The peasants got better land. The peasants were unhappy. However, they realized that they would have the opportunity to return. This is what William promised them.

After the village moved, William understood that the former owner would insist that the remaining two villages not move. William understood that the former owner would make it difficult for villagers. This meant that William would be unable to move the villagers without shedding blood. This was what William wanted to avoid.

William decided to wait until winter. This meant that the former owner had less than he expected. The village had moved in the spring, which meant that the peasants planted fields in their new village. William understood, because the former owner had less, that the former owner had to take more from his peasants. This meant that the peasants were hungry. William had saved food. William told the peasants that they could move and receive food. This resulted in one village moving.

(Aug. 28, 2018) William understood, after the second village moved, that the former owner had no choice. He could not support his men. He would have to leave. This meant that his men had to appeal to William. And this made a difficult problem.

William had confronted the men of the former owner. This had not resulted in bloodshed. Two of the knights had decided to check with their lord. And this was the reason why William had avoided bloodshed. However, a third knight had drawn his sword. He had been forced to sheath it. This was seen as a humiliation. In this situation, the man resented William. William knew, before there was any discussion, that the man would never forget. This made William unable to accept him.

William didn’t think that the man would become violent. However, William had no expectation. This meant that William was prepared. The man drew his sword. This was honorable. The sword had been drawn before. And now William had to fight.

(Sept. 2, 2018) William understood, if he was to be the master of his new knight, he must vanquish him. William understood, if he vanquished the man, it would be acceptable. However, William understood, if he failed, he would put his family at risk. William was unable to make that choice. William asked his new man to defend him. And this was the beginning of a terrible problem.

William was aware that his new man was not a very good swordsman. William was also aware that the opponent was not a very good swordsman. William understood, if the men were good swordsmen, one would yield. However, William did not think that either one would yield.

William understood that, if one of the men died, there would be a panic. There would be a feeling of death in the community. This meant, if William was unable to ensure that neither one died, William would save himself. William thought, if he commanded his man to yield, this would save the situation. However, if his man yielded, the man would lose honor. This meant that William would not have his man’s respect. William didn’t think of this problem. He commanded his man to yield.

The man obeyed. The man was struck dead.
P J Evans
2018-09-04 22:43:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Here is the story of Anschetil's son William, ancestor of the Harcourts.
(July 23, 2018) William was the son of Anschetil. William knew, before he was of age, that he would live in England. Anschetil had a connection in England. Anschetil understood that William, the Duke, intended to become the King of England. Anschetil understood, if he was able to establish a son, he would be able to ensure the well-being of his family. William was chosen to be the son who would be established. William was not the eldest. William had a brother. William knew, because of his brother, that he would not receive the family’s land in France. William knew, after he agreed to settle in England, that he would have to be careful. William understood, after he settled, that his fellow landowners would help the Englishman who claimed to be King. This meant that William had to be able to not (alienate) his neighbors.
William understood, after the Conquest, that he had been very lucky. The English (claimant) to the throne was killed. That meant that there would not be a serious struggle. Each county would succumb. William understood, after the Norman leader spoke, that William was going to be able to hold his land. This meant that William was able to find a wife.
(July 26, 2018) William had three problems. William understood that he was not a native. William had neighbors who resented him. William had to prove that he was loyal. These were William’s three problems.
William understood that, if he wanted to be accepted, he had to ingratiate himself with his neighbors. William also understood that his neighbors resented the thought of the Conquest. William, before the Conquest, had issues with one of his neighbors. This led to a later issue, that wasn’t settled. This was eventually decided by a Norman. William had to appeal to the authority of the Conqueror. This is how two of the three problems came together.
(August 5, 2018)
William knew, after the Conquest, that one of his neighbors would lose his land. William understood, as a member of a Norman family, he had the opportunity to receive the land. William, without thinking, sought to get the land. This led the man to oppose William.
William understood, if this was going to be resolved, William would have to find a way to help the man. William, without asking, told the Norman lieutenant that he would not give the land to the previous owner. This had the result of William being granted the land. And this led to the problem.
William didn’t want to tell the previous owner to leave. William had his own home. William understood, if he was going to be able to live with his neighbors, he had to be perceived as just. William also understood, if he was going to be respected as a Norman, that he would have to make the man leave. This was William’s problem.
(Aug. 18, 2018) William wanted to be able to encourage the neighbor. William understood that the neighbor was bitter. William knew, if it came to force, the neighbor would be killed. William understood, if the neighbor was killed, William would be remembered. This is what William wanted to avoid.
William understood, after there was a meeting of leading men, that William was seen as a collaborator. This meant that William was mistrusted. William understood, after this, that William would have to make sure that the Norman lieutenant was of the opinion that William was trustworthy. This meant that William was indeed a collaborator, even though he had not intended to become one.
William wanted to be able to make the owner of the land leave. William knew that the Norman lieutenant was observing. William also knew that the community was observing. William was of the opinion that he would be able to help maintain good order. William understood, after he was unable to convince the owner to leave, that he would have to use force.
William decided to move little by little. William began by telling peasants that they were his. This meant that William could tell them to move. And William understood that unwilling peasants would make a serious problem. So William simply announced that William intended to move some of the peasants. This was received with silence. William did not expect anything else.
(Aug. 24, 2018) William didn’t think that he would be able to move all of the peasants. He thought that he would be able to move some of them. Then the former owner would insist that the others stay. And this is what happened. William relocated one village. The peasants got better land. The peasants were unhappy. However, they realized that they would have the opportunity to return. This is what William promised them.
After the village moved, William understood that the former owner would insist that the remaining two villages not move. William understood that the former owner would make it difficult for villagers. This meant that William would be unable to move the villagers without shedding blood. This was what William wanted to avoid.
William decided to wait until winter. This meant that the former owner had less than he expected. The village had moved in the spring, which meant that the peasants planted fields in their new village. William understood, because the former owner had less, that the former owner had to take more from his peasants. This meant that the peasants were hungry. William had saved food. William told the peasants that they could move and receive food. This resulted in one village moving.
(Aug. 28, 2018) William understood, after the second village moved, that the former owner had no choice. He could not support his men. He would have to leave. This meant that his men had to appeal to William. And this made a difficult problem.
William had confronted the men of the former owner. This had not resulted in bloodshed. Two of the knights had decided to check with their lord. And this was the reason why William had avoided bloodshed. However, a third knight had drawn his sword. He had been forced to sheath it. This was seen as a humiliation. In this situation, the man resented William. William knew, before there was any discussion, that the man would never forget. This made William unable to accept him.
William didn’t think that the man would become violent. However, William had no expectation. This meant that William was prepared. The man drew his sword. This was honorable. The sword had been drawn before. And now William had to fight.
(Sept. 2, 2018) William understood, if he was to be the master of his new knight, he must vanquish him. William understood, if he vanquished the man, it would be acceptable. However, William understood, if he failed, he would put his family at risk. William was unable to make that choice. William asked his new man to defend him. And this was the beginning of a terrible problem.
William was aware that his new man was not a very good swordsman. William was also aware that the opponent was not a very good swordsman. William understood, if the men were good swordsmen, one would yield. However, William did not think that either one would yield.
William understood that, if one of the men died, there would be a panic. There would be a feeling of death in the community. This meant, if William was unable to ensure that neither one died, William would save himself. William thought, if he commanded his man to yield, this would save the situation. However, if his man yielded, the man would lose honor. This meant that William would not have his man’s respect. William didn’t think of this problem. He commanded his man to yield.
The man obeyed. The man was struck dead.
This is not a fiction group. Please post your fiction on your own site, or get an account at someplace like fanfiction.net
j***@gmail.com
2018-09-08 14:08:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Governor Alexander Spotswood -- another broken gateway ancestor?

Governor Spotswood will speak: "My father was hanged for treason. I knew the widow of Robert Spottiswoode. We agreed that I would be as his son, for our mutual advantage."
j***@gmail.com
2018-09-08 15:21:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Please stop. These posts are a violation of the group rules. Continuing to violate the group rules shows an extreme lack of respect.

if you do not stop I will begin reporting your email to your email provider frequently as an abuser. This may get your account only temporarily locked out while they investigate but I'm sure even that will be enough of a deterrent for you to stop I hope.
d***@aol.com
2018-09-08 21:06:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Governor Alexander Spotswood -- another broken gateway ancestor?
Governor Spotswood will speak: "My father was hanged for treason. I knew the widow of Robert Spottiswoode. We agreed that I would be as his son, for our mutual advantage."
Mr. Schmeeckle, you previously stated in this thread: "I have also recorded the story of Richard Fortescue, and the stories of Philippa Bonville and her father William, Lord Bonville and her husband William Grenville; I'll be adding those shortly."

When will you be getting to those stories? I'm sure they'll be interesting!
j***@gmail.com
2018-09-09 03:41:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I will reply to Joe and deca.

@ Joe, perhaps you, or SOMEbody, knows of proof of the parents of Alexander Spotswood. Otherwise, his lineage seems to be broken or at best speculation and probably not worth publishing.

@ deca, my initial plans got sidetracked, by the Harcourt lineage among other things. I intend to share the stories of two more generations in the Harcourt lineage, and then set it aside for the time being. I probably won't post William Bonville's story (the telling of which got interrupted and is still not quite finished) until I am ready to share the story of his wife Margaret Grey. I will also be sharing the ancestors' disagreements (corrections?) with Ron Bodine's conjectural Champernoun reconstruction.
j***@gmail.com
2018-09-09 12:18:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
From the beginning, my presentation of the materiel on this thread has been marred by repeated expressions of public rudeness and unwarranted hostility.

I am aware that the accuracy of my perceptions, as well as my habitual honesty and basic decency, cannot be reliably judged by people who barely know me in this online setting; such a judgment depends on establishing a track record to evaluate.

However, some sense of the extent of my capability as a genealogist can be gathered from various contributions that I have made, on this forum and at WikiTree, including my presentation of the not-quite-certain Colclough gateway lineage, my discussion of Bonville impaling Grenville in the stained-glass window as evidence for Philippa Bonville's parents, my various breakthroughs in the Machell/Luddington ancestry, and my proof by circumstantial evidence of the parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, together with three other examples of proofs by circumstantial evidence that I have earlier done.

For the record, in response to Joe Cochoit's openly stated attempt to intimidate me by threatening to file a frivolous complaint with google groups, I have over 40 years of experience as a genealogical researcher, complemented by a master's degree in history.

Regarding communicating with ancestors, I have never, either here or at WikiTree, presented this phenomenon as the source for a genealogical conclusion, for the simple reason that I am aware of others' inability to independently evaluate what I share (with the exception of other descendants of a relevant ancestor, who have developed this natural human ability, being able to ask for themselves).

With that said, my presentation of the ancestors' version of the Harcourt lineage brought to light the fact that the inclusion of one published Harcourt descent from a Magna Carta baron depends on an interpretation of an IPM that may not be correct. In general, much medieval genealogy depends on consensus acceptance of a particular interpretation of a single statement, the potential ambiguity of which may not be recognized (as with that Harcourt IPM, where "son" could mean grandSON, being the son of the deceased eldest son; which would mean Harcourt descent from the first wife instead of the second wife who had the Magna Carta lineage).

I have to consider the possibility that the outpouring of scorn by certain members of this group is the result of not only my breaking a taboo against publicly discussing communication with ancestors, but also other researchers' unwillingness to admit the uncertainty underlying many published conclusions.
j***@gmail.com
2018-09-09 12:57:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
I have to consider the possibility that the outpouring of scorn by certain members of this group is the result of not only my breaking a taboo against publicly discussing communication with ancestors, but also other researchers' unwillingness to admit the uncertainty underlying many published conclusions.
That would be a ridiculous unconsidered opinion. The public scorn is due solely to your fictional story posts being **off topic** and **inappropriate** to this group.

In your daily life, do you generally repeatedly engage in conversion after being asked to cease and desist? You are like a Jehovah's Witness knocking ON THE SAME DOOR 3 times a day and then blaming the homeowner for being annoyed.

Then drawing the conclusion that the fault lies with the homeowner, "Maybe they are just afraid to question their Jewish beliefs!"

No, the fault lies entirely with the person delivering the message who refuses to stop when asked (at first) politely. Nobody is bothered by the fact you engage in these fantasies, just that you do not recognize you are posting them **in the wrong group**. How would you feel if people kept posting about physics over and over in this group. It is OFF TOPIC and has an appropriate place. We are not telling you to stop being a Jehovah's Witness, just to please knock on someone else's door

--Joe C
d***@aol.com
2018-09-09 13:21:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
No, the fault lies entirely with the person delivering the message who refuses to stop when asked (at first) politely. Nobody is bothered by the fact you engage in these fantasies, just that you do not recognize you are posting them **in the wrong group**. How would you feel if people kept posting about physics over and over in this group. It is OFF TOPIC and has an appropriate place. We are not telling you to stop being a Jehovah's Witness, just to please knock on someone else's door
--Joe C
Joe C., perhaps you should cease and desist with your statements of religious bigotry! This newsgroup is not the place for your statements of religious intolerance. The fault lies with you, the person who refuses to stop when asked politely! This is considered your first polite request.
j***@gmail.com
2018-09-09 13:29:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
No, the fault lies entirely with the person delivering the message who refuses to stop when asked (at first) politely. Nobody is bothered by the fact you engage in these fantasies, just that you do not recognize you are posting them **in the wrong group**. How would you feel if people kept posting about physics over and over in this group. It is OFF TOPIC and has an appropriate place. We are not telling you to stop being a Jehovah's Witness, just to please knock on someone else's door
--Joe C
Joe C., perhaps you should cease and desist with your statements of religious bigotry! This newsgroup is not the place for your statements of religious intolerance. The fault lies with you, the person who refuses to stop when asked politely! This is considered your first polite request.
Has all logic left you? (or the other you?)

How can you accuse me of refusing to stop something and in the next sentence admit you have never previously asked?

It is also not religious bigotry to discuss the common practice of adherents of the Jehovah's Witnesses to knock on doors to spread their message.

--JC
d***@aol.com
2018-09-09 13:44:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
No, the fault lies entirely with the person delivering the message who refuses to stop when asked (at first) politely. Nobody is bothered by the fact you engage in these fantasies, just that you do not recognize you are posting them **in the wrong group**. How would you feel if people kept posting about physics over and over in this group. It is OFF TOPIC and has an appropriate place. We are not telling you to stop being a Jehovah's Witness, just to please knock on someone else's door
--Joe C
Joe C., perhaps you should cease and desist with your statements of religious bigotry! This newsgroup is not the place for your statements of religious intolerance. The fault lies with you, the person who refuses to stop when asked politely! This is considered your first polite request.
Has all logic left you? (or the other you?)
How can you accuse me of refusing to stop something and in the next sentence admit you have never previously asked?
It is also not religious bigotry to discuss the common practice of adherents of the Jehovah's Witnesses to knock on doors to spread their message.
--JC
I seriously think all logic has left you Joe Cook, Joe Cochoit, or whatever sock puppet you're using. You've now been warned and politely so. I believe you are the first to bring up religious affiliations in your personal attacks on Mr. Schmeeckle. You also mention numerous religious groups in your brazen attempt to publicly scorn Mr. Schmeeckle. Your exact statement even takes a shot at religious beliefs. Joe (C.?) stated: "Maybe they are just afraid to question their Jewish beliefs!" That has nothing to do with the number of times that Jehovah's Witnesses knock on doors! What is your problem? If you have bona fide complaints about John Schmeeckle, then file them with google groups. Discussing Mr. Schmeeckle's religious beliefs has no place in this newsgroup.
P J Evans
2018-09-09 14:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
No, the fault lies entirely with the person delivering the message who refuses to stop when asked (at first) politely. Nobody is bothered by the fact you engage in these fantasies, just that you do not recognize you are posting them **in the wrong group**. How would you feel if people kept posting about physics over and over in this group. It is OFF TOPIC and has an appropriate place. We are not telling you to stop being a Jehovah's Witness, just to please knock on someone else's door
--Joe C
Joe C., perhaps you should cease and desist with your statements of religious bigotry! This newsgroup is not the place for your statements of religious intolerance. The fault lies with you, the person who refuses to stop when asked politely! This is considered your first polite request.
Has all logic left you? (or the other you?)
How can you accuse me of refusing to stop something and in the next sentence admit you have never previously asked?
It is also not religious bigotry to discuss the common practice of adherents of the Jehovah's Witnesses to knock on doors to spread their message.
--JC
I seriously think all logic has left you Joe Cook, Joe Cochoit, or whatever sock puppet you're using. You've now been warned and politely so. I believe you are the first to bring up religious affiliations in your personal attacks on Mr. Schmeeckle. You also mention numerous religious groups in your brazen attempt to publicly scorn Mr. Schmeeckle. Your exact statement even takes a shot at religious beliefs. Joe (C.?) stated: "Maybe they are just afraid to question their Jewish beliefs!" That has nothing to do with the number of times that Jehovah's Witnesses knock on doors! What is your problem? If you have bona fide complaints about John Schmeeckle, then file them with google groups. Discussing Mr. Schmeeckle's religious beliefs has no place in this newsgroup.
Take it to private email, please, or I report both of you for abuse.
This is NOT, in any way, on topic for this group.
j***@gmail.com
2018-09-09 14:39:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Reading is still not your forte.

I was, by analogy, stating that blaming this group for not wanting to see your annoying posts would be similar to a serial door knocker blaming a homeowner's annoyance on something other than the obvious. In this case, an imaginary fear if questioning their non-Christian beliefs.

Put simply, people are telling you that you are being in appropriate and instead of accepting that, you try to rationalize that there must be something wrong with the audience that they find your posts in appropriate.

A comedian blaming an audience for not laughing.
A lover blaming their partner for not enjoying sex.
A historian blaming academia for their lack of success.

It isn't a conspiracy against you. You don't talk to dead people. You don't have conversations with "Earth' about global warming as you have elsewhere claimed.

Again, I have been posting to this group for 20 years and clearly not the same person as Joe Cochiot, whoever that is.

Its not even clear on what basis you would believe such a thing, other than both of our names being signed "Joe C."?...which would be a hilariously idiotic choice for a sock puppet.


--joe cook

d***@aol.com
2018-09-09 13:08:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
For the record, in response to Joe Cochoit's openly stated attempt to intimidate me by threatening to file a frivolous complaint with google groups, I have over 40 years of experience as a genealogical researcher, complemented by a master's degree in history.
Mr. Schmeeckle, you know why Joe Cochoit was trying to intimidate you and threaten you with complaints to google groups? That's because you had proven him wrong on numerous occasions regarding genealogical matters on SGM and over at WikiTree. Joe Cochoit's disdain for you can only be summed up by how you have consistently corrected his misstatements and errors over the last couple of years. Although, I'm sure you already knew that.
j***@gmail.com
2018-09-09 13:19:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
For the record, in response to Joe Cochoit's openly stated attempt to intimidate me by threatening to file a frivolous complaint with google groups, I have over 40 years of experience as a genealogical researcher, complemented by a master's degree in history.
Mr. Schmeeckle, you know why Joe Cochoit was trying to intimidate you and threaten you with complaints to google groups? That's because you had proven him wrong on numerous occasions regarding genealogical matters on SGM and over at WikiTree. Joe Cochoit's disdain for you can only be summed up by how you have consistently corrected his misstatements and errors over the last couple of years. Although, I'm sure you already knew that.
For the record, sock puppets are also a disingenuous practice.

For the record, I have never heard of anyone named Joe Cochoit and there is no alternative sneaky reason for my statements other than the ones I have stated

--Joe Cook
P J Evans
2018-09-09 14:31:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
From the beginning, my presentation of the materiel on this thread has been marred by repeated expressions of public rudeness and unwarranted hostility.
I am aware that the accuracy of my perceptions, as well as my habitual honesty and basic decency, cannot be reliably judged by people who barely know me in this online setting; such a judgment depends on establishing a track record to evaluate.
However, some sense of the extent of my capability as a genealogist can be gathered from various contributions that I have made, on this forum and at WikiTree, including my presentation of the not-quite-certain Colclough gateway lineage, my discussion of Bonville impaling Grenville in the stained-glass window as evidence for Philippa Bonville's parents, my various breakthroughs in the Machell/Luddington ancestry, and my proof by circumstantial evidence of the parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, together with three other examples of proofs by circumstantial evidence that I have earlier done.
For the record, in response to Joe Cochoit's openly stated attempt to intimidate me by threatening to file a frivolous complaint with google groups, I have over 40 years of experience as a genealogical researcher, complemented by a master's degree in history.
Regarding communicating with ancestors, I have never, either here or at WikiTree, presented this phenomenon as the source for a genealogical conclusion, for the simple reason that I am aware of others' inability to independently evaluate what I share (with the exception of other descendants of a relevant ancestor, who have developed this natural human ability, being able to ask for themselves).
With that said, my presentation of the ancestors' version of the Harcourt lineage brought to light the fact that the inclusion of one published Harcourt descent from a Magna Carta baron depends on an interpretation of an IPM that may not be correct. In general, much medieval genealogy depends on consensus acceptance of a particular interpretation of a single statement, the potential ambiguity of which may not be recognized (as with that Harcourt IPM, where "son" could mean grandSON, being the son of the deceased eldest son; which would mean Harcourt descent from the first wife instead of the second wife who had the Magna Carta lineage).
I have to consider the possibility that the outpouring of scorn by certain members of this group is the result of not only my breaking a taboo against publicly discussing communication with ancestors, but also other researchers' unwillingness to admit the uncertainty underlying many published conclusions.
Your fantasies, which you claim are your "ancestores" talking to you, do NOT belong in this newsgroup.
Please post them on your own site, and stop pretending here that they're in any way factual.

Most of us do admit that published works can be wrong. I'm sorry that you can't admit that your fantasies are wrong.
Loading...