Discussion:
Ancestral memories: Cecil/Davis with Manners, Courtenay and King Edward VI
Add Reply
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-17 20:56:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have discussed communicating with ancestors several times in this newsgroup. An explanation is appended to the end of this post.

According to my ancestors, a branch of the noble Cecil family fled to Virginia and changed its name to Davis. In Virginia, this Davis family was researched by genealogist Joan Horsley (now deceased). Several of her Davis files are at https://joanhorsley.org/ -- but her work is not without error. My paper-trail ancestor William Davis (c. 1725-1791) of Pittsylvania County, Virginia is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Davis-19677 -- I established, by a circumstantial proof, that he was the same as an earlier William Davis of Culpeper County, whom Joan Horsley mistakenly packed off to Kentucky.

--

The Cecil family rose to prominence through the association of William Cecil (1st Baron Burghley) with his father-in-law Peter Cheke, whose story begins this lineage. I will continue with following Cecil generations in separate posts.


--


Peter Cheke (1483 - 1560)


(May 25, 2019) Peter Cheke was a professor. Peter Cheke played a role in administering. Peter Cheke did not have a role in decisions about which professors to give appointment. This was done by the Chancellor. This was done without regard for what the existing professors thought. This led to disagreements. Professors were required to be respectful. However, professors could cultivate an air of disdain among their students for a view held by another professor. This was of the college. This was something that was often deplored. Inquiry was hobbled when an attitude was already present.

(May 28, 2019) Peter was able to think. People had the good of the university in mind. People had to think that the university could be maintained as it was. However, the King had changed the religion. Now, everything in the theology had to be reviewed. This made a terrible problem. How could this be done? Theology was the study of God. The theology of the Church involved revelation. Henry acted in a way that countered what many considered to be correct thinking. This was of considerable discussion.

(May 29, 2019) Peter had to think. The study of God was given by revelation and reason. The Church had decided that King Henry had been inspired. This was a difficult decision. King Henry was known for his way of not being a good Christian. Henry, however was King. If God was going to inspire a man, it would naturally be the King.

(May 31, 2019) Peter was the founder of a branch of the university. Peter hoped, because of what Peter understood, to be able to think of various ways of doing good. Peter was a professor of theology. Theology was in change. The King hoped to investigate and amend. Peter hoped to preserve. The King hoped to instruct the clergy. Peter expected to prevail unless the King had enough time to instruct in detail. The King took a lot of time, but perhaps not enough.

(June 4, 2019) Peter had to think carefully. Peter had to explain the thought behind what Peter tried to include. Theology had to conform to reason. To cut out the Church was to adopt an alternative structure for understanding the will of God. Peter accepted that the bishops in conclave could express the will. Peter also accepted that the King could be inspired. Peter had to think that the King could not be a substitute for a Pope. Peter had to imagine that, in an issue of doctrine, a King with the support of the bishops could be regarded as authoritative. This is what Peter affirmed. The King did not object.

[NOTE: The story of my ancestor Bishop William Barlow, who was actively involved in changing Church practice, relates to Peter Cheke’s point. --JSS]

(June 9, 2019) Peter was unable to think, after the issue of reformation of doctrine, that Peter would be unable to deal with any doctrinal issue that came up. Peter was confident. The King was not in a mood to object. Then Mary came. This upended everything. Peter had to resign. There was no need for a man who reformed Catholicism to suit a new order. Peter was unable to expect a pension. The hostility was evident. Peter simply had to be as a man with nothing. Peter had to encourage helpful people to not allow Peter to starve. This was humiliating. Peter was chastened and strengthened. Peter was of a new type. The men who endured during the time of Mary prospered when Elizabeth took the throne. Peter was reinstated. Peter was assured of a pension.

(June 11, 2019) Peter hoped. There was a need. Peter thought of the kingdom. There was simply too much strife. The Puritans and the Catholics were unrepentant. The King tried to stand in the middle. Those who stood with the King were reviled by both. Peter had to not be perceived as standing with the King. This was not as difficult as Peter thought. The King had to declare. People paid. Consequences were severe. Peter had to think. The ideas were discussed with men who thought of the good. This was the difference. Peter was never under attack.

(June 21, 2019) Peter had a decision. The end was coming. Peter had to think of what to say. The daughter had an ability. The mother had trained. The daughter understood. There must be a way to not expose. Peter had a feeling that Cecil shared the ability. Peter also had a feeling that the ability in Cecil was weak. Cheke was able to give to the children of Cecil. Peter had to think of ensuring that the daughter not make a relationship with a husband or wife of the children who did not have the ability. That was something that led to exposure.

Peter talked to the husband of the daughter. This was an awakening. The husband had the ability in a way that was equal to the daughter. This relieved Peter. There was no need to instruct.


Peter hoped. There would be a continuing lineage. A family with a lineage, at the center of power, could easily disappear. There were many examples of powerful families that now do not exist. Peter hoped that Cecil, somehow, would arrange for a younger son to go to another place. Peter hoped that there would be a new colony. This was discussed after it became clear that a New World had been discovered. Cheke and Cecil could help settle. That was a thought at the end. Peter had no way of making a proposal beyond the simple suggestion.


--


Agnes Duffield, wife of Peter Cheke


(June 24, 2019) Agnes was the wife of a university man. Agnes had to expect. The man was preoccupied. This was the constant state. Ideas were in the mind. The man was not concerned with a relationship. Agnes was a helper. The husband was polite. There was no lack. Agnes had to be accepting. The husband was pleased to attend church with the wife. This was as Agnes expected. This was the relationship. In church, Agnes was seen by all to be a respectable wife.
--
APPENDIX: Communicating with Ancestors

I began communicating with deceased ancestors, and recording their stories in November 2016, after I was told that this was possible. When recording the stories of distant German ancestors, I "heard" their thoughts in plain English. However, at times there was confusion about the proper choice of a word. When that happens, the ancestor and I agree on the particular word to use, and then I put parentheses around the word in question, and then the ancestor moves on with his/her story.

Humans have a natural ability to communicate with deceased ancestors. In some countries this ability is taken for granted, but in “modern” western society, this ability has been largely lost.

Here is my ancestor Anschetil d’Harcourt’s explanation of how he learned to communicate with ancestors: “When my grandfather died, I was young. I was sad because I wanted to be close to him. I asked how I could talk to him. My father said: Think of your grandfather. Words will appear. That is your grandfather.”

On Aug. 26, 2018, my ancestor Tobey Mathew (an early bishop in the Church of England) further explained:


"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."


Deceased ancestors appear unanimous in stating that, upon death, a separation of the soul into two parts occurs. As my recently-deceased father explained on Dec. 3, 2018, three days after his death:


"Roger knew, as Roger died, that there would be a change. Roger remembered hearing that there was a separation. Roger experienced this separation. Roger knew to expect it. Roger also knew, because of his training, that it is best to simply accept. Roger did not fight. The separation took place. Roger experienced a flash of memories. Things in Roger’s life that Roger did not have any recollection of went through Roger’s mind. Roger does not think that these memories still exist. Roger is certain that aspects of his life are no longer available. Much of Roger’s intellectual interest is simply not available. This suggests that the purpose of what Roger is in now is not related. Roger hopes that, as Roger experiences what he is experiencing, John will continue to make notes."




When I was told that it is possible to communicate with deceased ancestors, I was cautioned to always have a respectful attitude when talking to them. I decided to try it and see what happened, and it worked.

On the “Day of the Dead” (the day after Halloween) in 2016, I thought of the names of all of my grandparents and their parents and grandparents, and they started talking to me. (I made detailed notes.) Remorse came up immediately for some of them. I learned that women often had ongoing connections with living daughters and granddaughters, but most of the men had been isolated since their deaths. I was told – several times – that after death there is a kind of separation of what we call the soul into two parts. Each ancestor has a part that remains accessible to descendants, and a part that goes elsewhere. Memories are incomplete.

Ancestors want to see the well-being of their descendants. Ancestors also want to be able to talk to their own parents and children. Ancestors hope that living descendants will work their way back from their parents or grandparents to more distant ancestors, one generation at a time. This allows children and parents among the ancestors to talk to each other, when a living descendant is open to ancestral communication.

Ancestors want to avoid hearing from descendants who just want to ask questions about the family tree. Ancestors may not communicate with descendants with only this in mind. For this reason, it is once again a good idea to work your back from one generation to the next. Ancestors believe that descendants who are respectful will be pleased to talk about their own lives. Ancestors want their descendants to live will, and ancestors are concerned when descendants are struggling. Ancestors have the ability to observe the lives of living descendants, but they often do not do so. Ancestors may be inclined to be more observant after a descendant contacts an ancestor, especially if that ancestor had not had any communication with descendants before.

Some ancestors, especially those who were devoutly religious, may avoid communicating with descendants who don’t share their moral values.

Husbands and wives who didn’t get along with each other may be able to begin to communicate about issues that they never talked about before death.

One final point – I have heard some disturbing stories from ancestors, and proper respect demands that the ancestor be asked for permission before sharing such stories.
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-17 21:03:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is the story of Peter Cheke's son-in-law, William Cecil (1520-1598), 1st Baron Burghley:


(May 25, 2019) William was from a line of Welshmen. William did not think of his heritage. William was the son of a man who settled near London. This was not a recognized family. Cecil was not the name. William is aware that his father was able to hide the Welsh origin. However, when the title was bestowed, the father of William was inclined to investigate his origin. The father discovered that his grandfather was the son of a man who had an estate that was confiscated. This was because of a difficulty during the period of troubles that the living call the War of the Roses. William understands, Cecil was able to rise because of the confiscation. This showed loyalty to the side that prevailed.

(May 27, 2019) William will say “Cecil.” This was the way that everybody said. Cecil was of a family that was not important. Cecil was of an education that opened a door. The teacher who made an impression was Peter Cheke. This meant that Cecil had to be thought of together with Cheke. Cheke hoped that his student would gain a post at court. Cecil achieved. Then Cheke hoped that Cecil would take a daughter. Cecil was obliged. Cecil was thoughtful about this. The obligation prevented Cecil from marrying a woman with a useful family connection. Cheke was nobody. Then Cecil learned, Cheke was somebody who gave opinions that became everybody’s opinion. Cecil benefited far more that Cecil would have with a woman from a well-connected family.

(May 28, 2019) William had a new expectation. William discovered that William would be approached by people who wanted to talk to the professor. William had to think, because of this, people wanted William to show favor. This was something that William never expected. [INTERRUPTED] William decided to be of help when possible. William began writing notes for discussion with his father-in-law. If a question was difficult, William thought to discuss with the man who asked.

(May 29, 2019) William had no reason. There was a way in William life. The way was simple. A vision showed. William acted. Whatever the vision showed as the result came. William did not have any reason to doubt. This was something that William understood came from his family. William understood that both his father and his mother had this ability. William learned that this was “sight.” William also heard “second sight.” William never thought about what people said. Those with “sight” were persecuted. William had to not talk. This was what the parents of William instructed.

(May 31, 2019) Cecil was able to be as a lord. Cecil went to court. Who was Cecil? The name was unknown. Cecil had to affect wealth. This was not hard. All one had to do was spend. Wealth brought followers who wanted money. Cecil hoped to find a way to impress people. Having followers was impressive. Money was a concern. Cecil simply did not have enough.

(June 4, 2019) William was not interested in promoting the family. William had no ambition beyond preserving. The good of the kingdom took the attention. William had no further aim. Cecil was seen to not enrich. This was not well viewed. Others felt uncomfortable as they took. Cecil had the respect of the Crown. This was something that Cecil preserved as one monarch replaced another, including Queen Mary. Cecil had to be extremely cautious during the reign of Mary. Cecil avoided destroying or being destroyed.

(June 9, 2019) William was able to preserve as Elizabeth took the throne. William had no intention of apologizing. William was able to keep a position that did not have anything to do with doctrine. The kingdom had to be maintained. William did as best William could. Elizabeth saw fit to keep an able servant. William was grateful. William likes to think that William repaid Elizabeth amply.

(June 11, 2019) William had a good relationship with Elizabeth. Elizabeth wanted younger men. William had a son. There was an informal understanding. The son would be in the place of the father. The son could draw freely on the experience of the father. William was able to communicate from time to time. William was seen to not be too close. This was for the best.
--
Mary Cheke, wife of William Cecil


(May 31, 2019) Mary hoped. Mary did not have a good marriage. The husband wanted to be a courtier. Mary was not of a type to impress. This meant that the husband had to be away from his wife. Mary was a shy woman. Mary understood letters. Mary could read the Bible. Mary enjoyed thinking. Mary was unable to be as one with the ambitious husband who benefited from the family connection.
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-17 23:42:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
WARNING: For anyone who comes upon this thread in the future, please note that the entirety of the above is a work of historical fiction / creative writing. It has no resemblance to actual historical events.
--JC
Enno Borgsteede
2019-09-18 05:53:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
<snip>
WARNING: For anyone who comes upon this thread in the future, please note that the entirety of the above is a work of historical fiction / creative writing. It has no resemblance to actual historical events.
--JC
What creative writing? Mental illness!
Peter Stewart
2019-09-18 08:48:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enno Borgsteede
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 5:03:46 PM UTC-4,
Post by j***@gmail.com
Here is the story of Peter Cheke's son-in-law, William Cecil
<snip>
WARNING:  For anyone who comes upon this thread in the future, please
note that the entirety of the above is a work of historical fiction /
creative writing.   It has no resemblance to actual historical events.
--JC
What creative writing? Mental illness!
Agreed - although there can be literary value in such fictitious
communication, as with Dante whose imaginary self in the Divine Comedy
spoke with Manfred of Sicily.

But Manfred's posthumous avatar managed to speak in cogent sentences,
instead of slogans and drivel like the ancestors in these tiresome posts.

Peter Stewart
Enno Borgsteede
2019-09-21 12:38:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enno Borgsteede
<snip>
WARNING:  For anyone who comes upon this thread in the future, please note that the entirety of the above is a work of historical fiction / creative writing.   It has no resemblance to actual historical events.
--JC
What creative writing? Mental illness!
Agreed - although there can be literary value in such fictitious communication, as with Dante whose imaginary self in the Divine Comedy spoke with Manfred of Sicily.
But Manfred's posthumous avatar managed to speak in cogent sentences, instead of slogans and drivel like the ancestors in these tiresome posts.
That's right, and we assume, although we can't be completely sure, that Dante knew that his work was fiction, whereas J.S. doesn't seem to have a clue about reality.

Cheers,

Enno
Vance Mead
2019-09-21 17:01:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I thought we had see the last of J.S., but apparently he has escaped from the loony bin and is now running around loose.
Peter Stewart
2019-09-21 23:37:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enno Borgsteede
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Enno Borgsteede
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 5:03:46 PM UTC-4,
Post by j***@gmail.com
Here is the story of Peter Cheke's son-in-law, William Cecil
<snip>
WARNING:  For anyone who comes upon this thread in the future,
please note that the entirety of the above is a work of historical
fiction / creative writing.   It has no resemblance to actual
historical events.
--JC
What creative writing? Mental illness!
Agreed - although there can be literary value in such fictitious
communication, as with Dante whose imaginary self in the Divine Comedy
spoke with Manfred of Sicily.
But Manfred's posthumous avatar managed to speak in cogent sentences,
instead of slogans and drivel like the ancestors in these tiresome posts.
That's right, and we assume, although we can't be completely sure, that
Dante knew that his work was fiction, whereas J.S. doesn't seem to have
a clue about reality.
In the case of Manfred, Dante was communicating with the 'spirit' of
someone who died in the year after he himself was born, so not a distant
figure to be characterised entirely from unhinged imagination such as
sixteenth-century or earlier personages to the deluded poster.

I'm not sure that we can be definitive about how far a modern sense of
reality would overlap with Dante's, but certainly he had a clear and
brilliant mind by the lights of his time. And certainly he understood
the difference between his own actual experience and literary contrivance.

But most of all, he certainly knew better than to bore the wrong
audience with his effusions.

Peter Stewart
Ian Goddard
2019-09-18 07:23:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
I have discussed communicating with ancestors several times in this newsgroup.
Wrong group.
wjhonson
2019-09-18 17:10:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Not sure why you are calling the Cecil's "noble" unless this is figurative.

As to some branch of this family fleeing to Virginia.... and then changing their name to Davis. That has to be among the most utterly bizarre things you've ever said.

There is Zero evidence, that the Davis family in Virginia, is related to the Cecil's.
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-18 17:17:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is an overview of this Cecil/Davis lineage:

FIRST GENERATION

William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, married Mary, daughter of Peter Cheke

SECOND GENERATION

Thomas Cecil, 2nd Baron Burghley, married Dorothy, daughter of John Neville, 4th Baron Latimer

THIRD GENERATION

William Cecil, 1st Earl of Exeter, married Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Manners, 3rd Earl of Rutland.

FOURTH GENERATION

William Cecil (1590-1618), m. (2) Jane, "bastard" daughter of William Courtenay, de jure 3rd Earl of Devon, by Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward VI by Margaret (Neville), wife of Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland.

FIFTH GENERATION

John Cecil/Davis (b. 1618), brought to Virginia by his widowed mother after the murder of his father; his wife was descended through a bastard lineage from Alexander Livingstone, 1st Earl of Linlithgow, and also descended from Charles (bastard son of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland) and his wife Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward VI by his secret wife Margaret, bastard daughter of Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland, instigator of the plot to poison King Edward VI, with the poison being administered by his daughter the secret wife of King Edward.

SIXTH GENERATION

William Davis, had a son by Wendy (Gwendolyn), daughter of Henry Weston, bastard son of Josiah Winslow, who like his father Edward Winslow was once Governor of Plymouth Colony.

SEVENTH GENERATION

John Davis, "married" Mary, bastard daughter of Henry Soane, Jr., Speaker of the House of Burgesses, and descended (on his mother's side) through a bastard lineage that includes both King Henry VIII (grandson of King Richard III) and King Henry VI's son Edward.

EIGHTH GENERATION

Benjamin Davis (b. 1706), who married Esther Herndon, who was descended on her father's side from Virginia Governor Edward Digges and from the sister of Henry Soane, Jr. (see above, with lineage back to Kings Henry VI and VIII); and on her mother's side from Virginia governors Edward Nott and Alexander Spotswood, who on his mother's side descended from King Louis XI of France through a single daughter by his first wife who was sent to Scotland as a child to marry the King of Scots, a marriage that never took place, so she ended up marrying Alexander Livingston.

NINTH GENERATION

William Davis (c. 1730-1791), miller of Culpeper and Pittsylvania Counties, Virginia, married Sarah Graves, descended from Thomas Stucley, bastard son of King Henry VIII, and from Hugh (Stuckley) Orchard, descended through the Monck family from King Edward IV, and (through a Holloway connection) from the above-mentioned lineage from Kings Henry VI and VIII.
j***@albion.edu
2019-09-19 12:48:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha....
*deep breath*
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Wow. Just wow.

So. William Cecil’s wife Jane was a bastard daughter of the Earl of Devon, by Edward VI’s secret daughter Elizabeth, eh?
And then, Jane’s son John “Davis” was married to a woman who “descended from Charles [Neville] and his wife Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward VI”?
And then, virtually every Davis married some secret royal bastard-descendant?

Your dead ancestors must have sent all their logic “somewhere else” when they split their souls.

It bears repeating: no future readers should take this thread as anything other than wild historical fiction. And the “historical” part only refers the the (ab)use of actual historical names.
wjhonson
2019-09-19 17:52:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
A gigantic load of dog leavings.

William Cecil Lord Ros (1590-1618) married Anne Lake
The marriage was a bad fit, and there are *literally*... dozens upon dozens of letters, not to mention several lawsuits about this and the resultant fall out from his in-laws shenanigans.

Literally. Dozens.

There is exactly Zero possibility that he, married again, or even had an illegitimate child of any way shape or form, even stillborn.

The "widow" did not flee to Virginia, heavens to betsy. SHE HAD substantial holdings in Britain! The family was not poor for heavens sake. no one was pursuing that nutbag and her crazy family. They lived and died in England where she married again to George Rodney, and was buried right there!

Seriously this is the uttermost depths of ridiculously stupid attempts to tie in a landless family, with the family of the Secretary of State no less.

I can no longer withhold my contempt :)
Have a nice day
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-22 15:54:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
@ Enno Borgsteede, I am disappointed at your open rudeness, which I have come to expect from others around here. In the past, we have had strongly-worded disagreements about your pseudo-religious reductionist-materialist stance. In light of our previous disagreement, for you to impose that debatable point of view onto what I now present appears arrogant as well as boorish. I hope you have not given up all hope of maintaining the appearance of being civil. If you want to rekindle that debate, you could post in the "Debate with a scientist" thread at https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35419


@ wjhonson, you appear to be confused with your surprisingly ignorant assertion that Cecil was not a noble family. Perhaps you could double-check, or do a google search using phrases such as "Baron Burghley" and "Earl of Exeter."


@ jmbaker, you appear to be unaware of the inclination among aristocratic families to marry distant cousins. This arguably goes double for families with the ambiguous social status of having bastard royal blood. In 1969 the Commonwealth of Virginia embraced the slogan, "Virginia is for lovers." Back in the 17th century, they could have said, "Virginia is for bastards."

@ whjhonson (again), by your own statement, you were possessed by the urge to expose your "contempt." It may be worth considering the question of whether habitual expressions of contempt tend to breed cockroaches in one's soul. Perhaps, by exposing your contempt, you were trying to cover up your earlier ignorant blather about Cecil not being a noble family.

In the the English Cecil lineage that I presented earlier, each man married twice, although I did not mention both wives, just the mother of the son in my ancestral lineage. You seem to have not noticed that I clearly identified Jane Courtenay (second wife) and not Anne Lake (first wife) as the mother of John Cecil/Davis. Whether William Cecil (Baron Ros) was formally divorced from his first wife, and whether he was formally married to his second wife, are details that he may or may not choose to add to his story.

You make the categorical statement that "there is exactly zero possibility" that William Cecil "had an illegitimate child of any way, shape or form." You appear to be implying that you are utterly certain that William Cecil had been castrated. You seem to be living in a fantasy world unsupported by any documentary or other evidence. Perhaps you will agree that prudence dictates that you not expose yourself again.
Vance Mead
2019-09-22 17:15:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"You seem to be living in a fantasy world unsupported by any documentary or other evidence"
P J Evans
2019-09-22 18:00:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
@ Enno Borgsteede, I am disappointed at your open rudeness, which I have come to expect from others around here. In the past, we have had strongly-worded disagreements about your pseudo-religious reductionist-materialist stance. In light of our previous disagreement, for you to impose that debatable point of view onto what I now present appears arrogant as well as boorish. I hope you have not given up all hope of maintaining the appearance of being civil. If you want to rekindle that debate, you could post in the "Debate with a scientist" thread at https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35419
@ wjhonson, you appear to be confused with your surprisingly ignorant assertion that Cecil was not a noble family. Perhaps you could double-check, or do a google search using phrases such as "Baron Burghley" and "Earl of Exeter."
@ jmbaker, you appear to be unaware of the inclination among aristocratic families to marry distant cousins. This arguably goes double for families with the ambiguous social status of having bastard royal blood. In 1969 the Commonwealth of Virginia embraced the slogan, "Virginia is for lovers." Back in the 17th century, they could have said, "Virginia is for bastards."
@ whjhonson (again), by your own statement, you were possessed by the urge to expose your "contempt." It may be worth considering the question of whether habitual expressions of contempt tend to breed cockroaches in one's soul. Perhaps, by exposing your contempt, you were trying to cover up your earlier ignorant blather about Cecil not being a noble family.
In the the English Cecil lineage that I presented earlier, each man married twice, although I did not mention both wives, just the mother of the son in my ancestral lineage. You seem to have not noticed that I clearly identified Jane Courtenay (second wife) and not Anne Lake (first wife) as the mother of John Cecil/Davis. Whether William Cecil (Baron Ros) was formally divorced from his first wife, and whether he was formally married to his second wife, are details that he may or may not choose to add to his story.
You make the categorical statement that "there is exactly zero possibility" that William Cecil "had an illegitimate child of any way, shape or form." You appear to be implying that you are utterly certain that William Cecil had been castrated. You seem to be living in a fantasy world unsupported by any documentary or other evidence. Perhaps you will agree that prudence dictates that you not expose yourself again.
*I'm* surprised that you haven't gotten the help you need to differentiate between reality and fantasy. None of what you're posting is genealogy or history.
Enno Borgsteede
2019-09-23 19:20:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by P J Evans
Post by j***@gmail.com
@ Enno Borgsteede, I am disappointed at your open rudeness, which I have come to expect from others around here. In the past, we have had strongly-worded disagreements about your pseudo-religious reductionist-materialist stance. In light of our previous disagreement, for you to impose that debatable point of view onto what I now present appears arrogant as well as boorish. I hope you have not given up all hope of maintaining the appearance of being civil. If you want to rekindle that debate, you could post in the "Debate with a scientist" thread at https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35419
In the the English Cecil lineage that I presented earlier, each man married twice, although I did not mention both wives, just the mother of the son in my ancestral lineage. You seem to have not noticed that I clearly identified Jane Courtenay (second wife) and not Anne Lake (first wife) as the mother of John Cecil/Davis. Whether William Cecil (Baron Ros) was formally divorced from his first wife, and whether he was formally married to his second wife, are details that he may or may not choose to add to his story.
You make the categorical statement that "there is exactly zero possibility" that William Cecil "had an illegitimate child of any way, shape or form." You appear to be implying that you are utterly certain that William Cecil had been castrated. You seem to be living in a fantasy world unsupported by any documentary or other evidence. Perhaps you will agree that prudence dictates that you not expose yourself again.
*I'm* surprised that you haven't gotten the help you need to differentiate between reality and fantasy. None of what you're posting is genealogy or history.
Right, me too!

To John: To me it makes no sense to reply to uncivil arguments that start with silly accusations like me having a "pseudo-religious reductionist-materialist stance". It basically tells me that you're not really interested in being civil at all.

And AFAIK, there is nothing rude in saying that you're suffering from a mental illness, because all signs are there. Hearing voices is not a problem by itself, but believing them, and thinking that the whole world is against you is.

Good luck!

Enno

P.S. Your messages are automatically deleted here, so normally I don't see anything you write. It's P J Evans quoting your rudeness that got me into reading that.
j***@albion.edu
2019-09-22 22:42:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Oh! Well then, I am severely and utterly chastened. It never occurred to foolish me that royal inbreeding was a thing that existed. I am so glad that you have proven to me that your (and your ancestors’) motives are pure as driven snow, and that self-aggrandizing royal lineages are the hallmark of a true historian. And thank you for the thought that William Cecil must have been castrated for Will Johnson to be certain that he had no bastards. Now I am sure you must be descended from this castrato.
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-22 23:53:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@albion.edu
It never occurred to foolish me that royal inbreeding was a thing that existed.
Not "royal inbreeding," but rather INTERbreeding (there is a difference) among non-royal families with bastard descents from royalty.
taf
2019-09-23 02:36:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@albion.edu
It never occurred to foolish me that royal inbreeding was a thing that existed.
Not "royal inbreeding," but rather INTERbreeding (there is a difference) among non-royal families with bastard descents from royalty.
There is a difference, but what you describe, with two successive generations of your absurd pedigree marrying the descendants of the same king, is inbreeding.

An example of 'royal interbreeding' would be when Berengaria of Portugal married Valdemar II of Denmark - a marriage between the royal families of different kingdoms, not a marriage between two scions of the same royal family.

taf
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-23 03:35:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@albion.edu
It never occurred to foolish me that royal inbreeding was a thing that existed.
Not "royal inbreeding," but rather INTERbreeding (there is a difference) among non-royal families with bastard descents from royalty.
There is a difference, but what you describe, with two successive generations of your absurd pedigree marrying the descendants of the same king, is inbreeding.
An example of 'royal interbreeding' would be when Berengaria of Portugal married Valdemar II of Denmark - a marriage between the royal families of different kingdoms, not a marriage between two scions of the same royal family.
taf
If you look up the definitions, the difference is in the degree of the relationship. When third cousins once removed marry (as in this case), it is INTERbreeding, not inbreeding.
taf
2019-09-23 05:23:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by taf
There is a difference, but what you describe, with two successive generations of your absurd pedigree marrying the descendants of the same king, is inbreeding.
An example of 'royal interbreeding' would be when Berengaria of Portugal married Valdemar II of Denmark - a marriage between the royal families of different kingdoms, not a marriage between two scions of the same royal family.
If you look up the definitions, the difference is in the degree of the relationship. When third cousins once removed marry (as in this case), it is INTERbreeding, not inbreeding.
Not any definition I can find, but I guess if you are going to concoct relationships, you can just as well fabricate definitions.

Anyhow, you seem to be confused about the fraudulent genealogy you presented. You showed the so-called John Cecil Davis as maternal grandson of Elizabeth, fanciful daughter of Edward VI. You also said that the made-up wife of this John Cecil/Davis was descended from the same Elizabeth, though you spared us the precise inanity invented to connect them. Now, since you are one for definitions, go ahead and look up what degree of relationship exists between a grandson of somebody and someone descended from the same person. Hint: it ain't 3rd cousin, any times removed.

Oh, I know. This must be one of those cases when the ancestors are lying their asses off, which you warned us about.

taf
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-23 10:07:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by j***@gmail.com
If you look up the definitions, the difference is in the degree of the relationship. When third cousins once removed marry (as in this case), it is INTERbreeding, not inbreeding.
Anyhow, you seem to be confused about the fraudulent genealogy you presented. You showed the so-called John Cecil Davis as maternal grandson of Elizabeth, fanciful daughter of Edward VI. You also said that the made-up wife of this John Cecil/Davis was descended from the same Elizabeth, though you spared us the precise inanity invented to connect them. Now, since you are one for definitions, go ahead and look up what degree of relationship exists between a grandson of somebody and someone descended from the same person. Hint: it ain't 3rd cousin, any times removed.
It looks like we both made a mistake here. I should have said SECOND (not third) cousins once removed. And you falsely assumed that the two separately-identified half-sisters named Elizabeth (daughters of King Edward by two different mothers named Margaret, one of them a bastard of the 5th Earl of Westmorland and the other the daughter of the 4th Earl of Westmorland and the wife of the 2nd Earl of Rutland) were one and the same person. This means that John Cecil/Davis's parents (both descended from Margaret the wife of the 2nd Earl of Rutland), like John and his wife, were HALF second cousins once removed.
taf
2019-09-23 14:43:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
It looks like we both made a mistake here. I should have said SECOND (not
third) cousins once removed.
So you are changing your made up definition of interbreeding to match the scenario?
Post by j***@gmail.com
And you falsely assumed that the two separately-identified half-sisters
named Elizabeth (daughters of King Edward by two different mothers named
Margaret, one of them a bastard of the 5th Earl of Westmorland and the
other the daughter of the 4th Earl of Westmorland and the wife of the 2nd
Earl of Rutland) were one and the same person.
Oh, of course, an 'I'm Larry, this is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl' scenario. The king took time off from dying at the age of 15 to father two children by his secret wife and her aunt, and in his sickly state he couldn't remember any female name but Elizabeth for both, not the name of either mother (the same name), nor that of his dearly-departed idolized mother, no. Why didn't I think of that?
Post by j***@gmail.com
This means that John Cecil/Davis's parents (both descended from Margaret
the wife of the 2nd Earl of Rutland), like John and his wife, were HALF
second cousins once removed.
Of course they were, because the voices in your head say so.

taf
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-23 19:49:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
taf, you appear confused. As I understand, inbreeding means repeated marriages within a lineage in violation of the limits of consanguinity, generally accepted as third or more distant cousins. I suspect that, back in the 17th century, a marriage between half second cousins once removed was not considered problematic.

Of course the general question here is where to draw the line. The Valois kings of France routinely married second cousins descended from the same earlier royal couple -- it seemed almost to be a rule. Does this repeated intermarriage count as inbreeding? I would say yes, but others may disagree.

On the other hand, among the English (and European?) landed gentry, it was not uncommon for there to be more than one intermarriage of third cousins in a pair of allied families. I don't think that is inbreeding.

According to my ancestors, King Henry VII (bastard son of Richard III who was himself a bastard) married his half first cousin Anne of York. Is that single instance of intermarriage in violation of the limits of consanguinity but not quite reaching the red line of full first cousins something to be socially discouraged? In my opinion it is, but I'm not inclined to argue the point strongly, especially as the overarching goal of the marriage was peace in the realm.
taf
2019-09-23 20:11:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
taf, you appear confused. As I understand, inbreeding means repeated
marriages within a lineage in violation of the limits of consanguinity,
Nope. Not confused, I just am not constrained by your self-serving personal definition. Simply put, inbreeding is within a group, interbreeding is between groups. That's it.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Of course the general question here is where to draw the line.
No, actually the general question here is whether someone who whimsically invents relationships has any credibility on any subject.
Post by j***@gmail.com
On the other hand, among the English (and European?) landed gentry, it was
not uncommon for there to be more than one intermarriage of third cousins
in a pair of allied families. I don't think that is inbreeding.
Because, . . . . . just because, I guess.
Post by j***@gmail.com
According to my ancestors, King Henry VII (bastard son of Richard III who
was himself a bastard)
Of course. It is said that anyone who defends himself in court has a fool for a client. Well, anyone whose progeny thinks the voices they hear in their head are sufficient reason to rewrite documented history has a fool for a descendant.
Post by j***@gmail.com
married his half first cousin Anne of York. Is that single instance of
intermarriage in violation of the limits of consanguinity but not quite
reaching the red line of full first cousins something to be socially
discouraged?
It is a fantasy you dreamed up, so speculating about the societal acceptance of it is pointless.
Post by j***@gmail.com
In my opinion it is, but I'm not inclined to argue the point strongly,
especially as the overarching goal of the marriage was peace in the realm.
The overarching goal of the 'marriage' was to satisfy your perverse desire to rewrite history based on the voices you claim to hear in your head. Nothing is gained from concocting further motivations for a fantastical union.

taf
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-23 22:37:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Oops, my bad, I should have said Elizabeth (not Anne) of York, eldest daughter of King Edward IV by his wife Anne, and wife of King Henry VII.
taf
2019-09-23 23:23:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Oops, my bad, I should have said Elizabeth (not Anne) of York, eldest daughter
of King Edward IV by his wife Anne, and wife of King Henry VII.
That was the least of the problems with your made-up relationship.

taf
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-24 01:43:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
SECOND GENERATION

Thomas Cecil, 2nd Baron Burghley, married Dorothy, daughter of John Neville, 4th Baron Latimer

(May 25, 2019) Thomas Cecil was a minister. Thomas was not as important as his brother Robert. Thomas had to think that his brother was the one who has been remembered by history. Thomas was important, but not as much.

(May 27, 2019) Thomas was unable to be as the first minister. This was the ambition. This was always out of reach. Thomas had to think, because of his ambition, Thomas sometimes tried to act in a way that made other men look bad. This was not uncommon. Thomas had to regret. Thomas began to learn. This was a way that caused bad feelings among the men who had to cooperate for the realm to function.

(May 29, 2019) Thomas improved. Thomas was noticed. [INTERRUPTED] Thomas had a decision to make. Thomas knew, because of what Thomas had done, that three men hated Thomas. Thomas had to think of how to relieve the feelings. Thomas thought, this should be done in stages. The first stage was easy: Do not do anything to make the feeling worse. The second stage was tricky: Act indirectly for the benefit of the men. This might be seen. The third stage was to apologize and offer to make (compensation). Thomas was able to do this with one man. This had an effect on the other two. Eventually, none of them hated. Thomas was never able to cooperate with them.

Thomas had to think of what he did. Thomas was unable to undo harm that he did. Thomas was able to make amends. That had to be sufficient. Thomas was able to hope, and continued hoping until the day Thomas died.

(May 31, 2019) Thomas was unable to be at peace. Thomas had harmed six women. Each woman had given a child. The goal was to have an additional son. All of the children were daughters. Thomas kept on trying. Each woman was maintained. Thomas was unwilling to give dowries. Each daughter found a man. The man was as a husband. This was of bastard families. Thomas supposes that many men stopped after having a son in this way, and didn’t have any daughter. Thomas made up for this lack.

(June 4, 2019) Thomas was the man who decided. Thomas had to be invisible. There was a brother. The brother was the face. Thomas was the mind. The brother had a way with people. Thomas had a way with strategy. The brother accepted. Both Thomas and the brother were well.

(June 9, 2019) Thomas had a decision. The brother was of the highest. Thomas could not hope. Thomas had to think of a son being in this position. Thomas had to prepare the son. The son had to be able to consider the realm before the family. This was of the essence. Thomas understood, a man who did this and was recognized by a faithful sovereign would prosper. The son took the message to heart.

Thomas did not as he would. Thomas did as Thomas saw. Thomas knew. The sight was of a spirit. The Sight showed. Thomas understood that the Sight did not show without reason. Thomas had to act as Thomas saw. Thomas understood, if Thomas did not, a terrible result would happen. The result might not be for Thomas. The plan of the sight was harmony within the kingdom. The Sight had to plan in a way that allowed people to cooperate. The sight had to think of men who had power and made decisions. Thomas understood that the Sight, in the family of Cheke, came to Cecil and demanded attention. Cheke preserved the sight for six generations. The sight finally was able to descend to a family with power.

(June 11, 2019) Thomas had a relationship. The wife was of a similar family. Neville and Cecil both had the sight. Thomas understands that Neville rebelled against what the sight showed. This resulted in a terrible crisis. Thomas understood that Neville could not recover.

(June 18, 2019) Thomas had a gift. The sight was strong. Thomas was able to think of a problem in the kingdom. The sight gave a way to make the situation better. Sometimes the situation would completely recover. Sometimes it would get better and then get worse again.

(June 20, 2019) Thomas had to think of the well-being of many people. The sight was constant. Thomas looked and acted. There was no thinking. Thomas had a reputation The man was of a genius. The brother had the ability to be as one with people. But Thomas had the ability to see a clear way forward. Thomas had to be very careful. This ability, if talked about, would lead to the downfall of Cecil. Nobody was allowed to have the sight.

(June 24, 2019) Thomas had to think. The Sight was not demanding. Thomas used. There was no compulsion. The Sight sometimes was of this way. Thomas had to think. Ancestors gave. Thomas saw. There was a clear indication. Thomas was living as the Sight imagined.

(June 28, 2019) Thomas had the ability to ask. The Sight was able to communicate. The Sight explained, it would talk once and never again. The Sight was a being that had the responsibility of ensuring that a lineage continued. The lineage was of an ancient king. The king was in the Bible. The Bible misrepresented the story of Nebuchadnezzar. This was the king who was the ancestor of everyone who had the sight. Nebuchadnezzar was not a bad king. Nebuchadnezzar was under the compulsion to act as the Sight ensured. This was the story that was not included. The Sight passed, from a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar, into the House of David. This was the origin of the Sight in the European royal houses. The Sight did not give details. The Sight had to do as it did, because humans are inclined to self-destruct. The Sight is opposed to a force that wanted humans to self-destruct. The force acted on human leaders. Later, the force acted on groups of men with similar motives. This is the result of the force being able to compel men who try to dominate. If a man does not try to dominate, the force has no power over the man.

(July 5, 2019) Thomas had to be able to have a discipline. Thomas had to not rely on the sight for routine decisions. Thomas understood, because of this need, that Thomas would not be able to continue if Thomas was in a time of crisis. Thomas could not overuse the sight.

Thomas decided. There would be a system. Thomas would not use the sight for routine requests. Thomas had to think of the good of the realm. The good of individuals would be the topic for Thomas to use his own judgment. For the good of the realm, Thomas looked. Many times there was a clear alternative, and one choice was superior. Sometimes there were alternatives with little difference in the outcome. And once, there was no alternative. The situation must be endured. This led Thomas to gain a reputation. Thomas was the man who could find a way through. When, in this case, Thomas said there was no way through, this was accepted. Thomas had the will of the decision makers. This was a terrible power. Thomas had to be insistent on not receiving gifts. This was mentioned. This was respected. Thomas had the reputation of a man without personal interest.

(July 6, 2019) Thomas had to discuss what was going to happen. Thomas decided to not. There was too much at stake for a careless word to give thought that Thomas might have the sight. If Thomas had given this thought, there would be a cry. The sight was reviled. The sight made men do things that were against the Church. Thomas had no experience of this. Thomas simply heard the stories. A man with a wife was commanded to have a child by another woman. Somehow, the sight was of this act. The sight must be eliminated. The Church was adamant. The Catholic Church before was just as adamant. Thomas had to be extremely cautious.

Thomas did not have enough time. The Spanish were coming. Sight showed. There would be a great victory. Thomas had to organize what would happen afterward. This is where Thomas did not have enough time. Thomas had to be able to direct England toward the New World. Spain must be limited. The way to limit was to colonize north of where Spain was. Thomas foresaw. The nation that would arise would be the most powerful in the world. The nation would self-destruct in the midst of a natural cataclysm. Thomas foresaw. A new nation would arise. This nation would include the western part of the old nation. It would also include the area to the south, down the tail of the northern continent. Thomas foresaw, the people of this nation would be greatly reduced by the natural disaster. Thomas saw, because of the problems, the people from the north would be greeted as saviors. The new nation would take form very quickly. The new nation would be dominant in the area, but not in the world. The new nation would be as an island, without connecting to other areas in the northern continent, where nobody would live, because of the result of man-made disaster on top of the natural disaster. Thomas was unable to think that what Thomas saw was real. Thomas saw an explosion destroying an entire city. Thomas believes that this is able to be done now. Thomas does not sense any hint of disbelief in the man who is recording.

(July 7, 2019) Thomas had an expectation. Thomas was going to continue. Cecil would be able to continue. The realm would continue to use the service of Cecil. William, the eldest son, was a fitting successor as Elizabeth wanted younger counselors.

Thomas wanted to be of the group of elder statesmen who helped organize the thought of the counselors. Thomas discovered that there was opposition to the inclusion of Thomas. There was a sense that Thomas would overpower the group, because the Queen was accustomed to deferring to Thomas. This meant that Thomas had to think of finding another way to have influence. Thomas hoped. Another way appeared. The son was repeatedly challenged. Thomas began to realize that the group of elder statesmen was the same group as the group that was challenging the son. Thomas originally thought that this was simply personal ambition. But a design eventually appeared. Venice was the likely origin. Thomas instructed a servant to find a way to plant this idea without it being of Thomas. Thomas eventually heard a man criticize the power of Venice to corrupt, using this group as an example. Thomas considered his warning to have been delivered.

--

Dorothy, daughter of John Neville, 4th Baron Latimer

(July 8, 2019) Dorothy was the daughter of a man who was the leader of a younger branch of Neville. Neville had six branches. Dorothy thought, the different branches did not act as a single family. Neville was a name that got attention. Dorothy understood, if someone thought that Dorothy was from an important branch, that person would be respectful. But, if that person thought that Dorothy was not part of the important branch, the person would be dismissive, as if Dorothy was falsely pretending to be important.

(July 24, 2019) Dorothy had a decision. To marry Cecil was to be of the highest. Cecil was not an important family. Cecil was a servant. The Crown made Cecil important. Dorothy had to be aware that Cecil would be consumed by the needs of the realm. This meant that Dorothy would not have a relationship with the husband. This also meant, most likely, the husband would not have a mistress. Dorothy chose to marry Cecil, and accepted the life of the wife of a prominent courtier. Dorothy was not unable to assist when Cecil needed to help a man go in a proper direction. This made Dorothy feel pleased, to be able to be of benefit to a faithful husband. Dorothy did not think of the women that the Sight selected to be the mothers of bastards as being unfaithful. Dorothy had a bit of the sight. Dorothy understood, Cecil must act as if Cecil did of his own. Dorothy did not see any of the women as a mistress.

(Aug. 11, 2019) Dorothy had to think. Cecil was propagating the sight. Dorothy had a child, a son and heir. Dorothy wanted another child. Thomas was instructed by the sight to not. Dorothy was as a woman with no husband. Dorothy had to endure. Cecil had been good. Some husbands took their wives with little thought for propriety of their behavior. Dorothy was never treated in a manner that was improper toward a lady.

(Aug. 22, 2019) Dorothy had to accept. There would be no other children. There was a son. There were two daughters. Cecil was a small family. The family did not have great wealth. An additional son would be a burden. Dorothy thought, because of this, there would be a new respect for Cecil as the son became established. Dorothy then thought of a son not being able to make a good arrangement for the future. Would there be time for a second son to be born? Sometimes a son, after becoming an adult, wasted his patrimony and came to a bad end. Dorothy was troubled by this thought. Cecil was also concerned. The sight had to be respected and obeyed. This was the end of the discussion. Cecil had to think that, as the sight was regularly correct, there would also be a family that continued, because this is what the sight showed. Cecil and Dorothy were reconciled to this need to simply act as the sight demanded.

(Sept. 17, 2019) Dorothy was unable to live to see the birth of grandchildren. Dorothy suspects that her husband had an affair. Dorothy understood. The man needed another son. A bastard would not be expensive to maintain. A bastard would be able to support the family without expecting. Dorothy thought, this was not a worthy ambition. Dorothy had to accept that this was the way of many noblemen. Dorothy never knew.
P J Evans
2019-09-24 01:48:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
SECOND GENERATION
[many lines of fiction snipped]

This isn't genealogy. It's fiction, and poor-quality fiction at that.
Please stop posting it here; this is not a fiction support group.
wjhonson
2019-09-24 03:26:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
@ Enno Borgsteede, I am disappointed at your open rudeness, which I have come to expect from others around here. In the past, we have had strongly-worded disagreements about your pseudo-religious reductionist-materialist stance. In light of our previous disagreement, for you to impose that debatable point of view onto what I now present appears arrogant as well as boorish. I hope you have not given up all hope of maintaining the appearance of being civil. If you want to rekindle that debate, you could post in the "Debate with a scientist" thread at https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35419
@ wjhonson, you appear to be confused with your surprisingly ignorant assertion that Cecil was not a noble family. Perhaps you could double-check, or do a google search using phrases such as "Baron Burghley" and "Earl of Exeter."
@ jmbaker, you appear to be unaware of the inclination among aristocratic families to marry distant cousins. This arguably goes double for families with the ambiguous social status of having bastard royal blood. In 1969 the Commonwealth of Virginia embraced the slogan, "Virginia is for lovers." Back in the 17th century, they could have said, "Virginia is for bastards."
@ whjhonson (again), by your own statement, you were possessed by the urge to expose your "contempt." It may be worth considering the question of whether habitual expressions of contempt tend to breed cockroaches in one's soul. Perhaps, by exposing your contempt, you were trying to cover up your earlier ignorant blather about Cecil not being a noble family.
In the the English Cecil lineage that I presented earlier, each man married twice, although I did not mention both wives, just the mother of the son in my ancestral lineage. You seem to have not noticed that I clearly identified Jane Courtenay (second wife) and not Anne Lake (first wife) as the mother of John Cecil/Davis. Whether William Cecil (Baron Ros) was formally divorced from his first wife, and whether he was formally married to his second wife, are details that he may or may not choose to add to his story.
You make the categorical statement that "there is exactly zero possibility" that William Cecil "had an illegitimate child of any way, shape or form." You appear to be implying that you are utterly certain that William Cecil had been castrated. You seem to be living in a fantasy world unsupported by any documentary or other evidence. Perhaps you will agree that prudence dictates that you not expose yourself again.
John you nutty nutbag there WAS no second marriage.
Lord Ros did not marry a second time. And he did not divorce his wife, "formally" or not, whatever in the name of gods green earth that is supposed to mean.

The life of Lord Ros is well documented. perhaps you should do ANY RESEARCH at all. I mean... any... at all. That might help.

But I think it's pretty clear, that being completely shut out of any sort of serious consideration, you have taken this mystical path, where you can just make up any ridiculous nonsense you think you can and post it as facts.

William Cecil Lord Ros died s.p. (and v.p.)
As I said there are DOZENS of letters flying back and forth between these families regarding all of this.

Do you *really* think that some second wife and child would escape the notice of EVERYBODY ? But suddenly be found by a raving nutcase and his nutty associates four hundred years later? And then attached to a family of landless nobodies ? With no supporting documentation of any sort at all.

Nice research. Try again.
wjhonson
2019-09-24 02:49:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It really makes little difference if they were second cousins, or second cousins once removed, or fourth cousins for that matter, since such a marriage DID NOT OCCUR.

I mean if you are going to make up genealogical nonsense, connecting landless nobodies to well-known landed and titled families, you should really pick people quite a bit more obscure.

The life of Lord Ros is well known, and has been documented, up the ying-yang. No matter what extra baggage you try to load on, this silly Virginia family were *not* his descendants at all. So. Next caller.
wjhonson
2019-09-24 03:32:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
One more cogent point, as if my slinging of waste upon your head was not enough.

Explain just HOW the Barony of Ros, which was his, and the Earldom of Exeter, which was his, would just magically *leap* away from his only son as you claim?

Exactly how did it occur that *both* of these would move to some other person instead of the rightful heir that you claim existed?
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-24 21:34:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
One more cogent point, as if my slinging of waste upon your head was not enough.
Explain just HOW the Barony of Ros, which was his, and the Earldom of Exeter, which was his, would just magically *leap* away from his only son as you claim?
Exactly how did it occur that *both* of these would move to some other person instead of the rightful heir that you claim existed?
Something about your phrasing suggests that you would actually be not such a bad fellow if you weren't being instructed to be aggressively rude.

Regarding your "cogent" point, I already implied that I was not told that William Cecil was formally married to his second wife. Obviously, without a formal marriage, the titles would not pass on to his son.

William Cecil will speak for himself: "William had little time. Sight showed death in the near future. A wife was sent, with the thought of pretending a marriage upon return. William was not able to make any arrangement for the future of the son. Death took William as the price for the wife and son escaping from Venice. William had to act as the sight directed. The sight showed a lineage in the New World. William had no hope, except to trust as William saw."
wjhonson
2019-09-24 23:27:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.

That would explain why the titles would not pass to this bastard child. However, merely *stating* that this occurred, and that no one in his blood-family, or in-law-married, thought fit to ever mention it, means the onus is upon you to provide actual sources, which make this claim concrete.

Not dreams from your supposed ancestors, but actual sources.
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-24 23:56:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.
By your reasoning, Benjamin Franklin's "wife" Deborah Read was actually his mistress.
wjhonson
2019-09-25 00:34:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by wjhonson
So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.
By your reasoning, Benjamin Franklin's "wife" Deborah Read was actually his mistress.
When a man has a wife, and he is not divorced from her (which he was not), then any other woman is not his "wife", common-law or not. He was not divorced. His wife Anne Lake, remarried, after his death.

Are you seriously going to do NO research at all on this family?
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-25 10:27:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by wjhonson
So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.
By your reasoning, Benjamin Franklin's "wife" Deborah Read was actually his mistress.
When a man has a wife, and he is not divorced from her (which he was not), then any other woman is not his "wife", common-law or not. He was not divorced. His wife Anne Lake, remarried, after his death.
Are you seriously going to do NO research at all on this family?
Once again, Deborah Read was not divorced from her husband when she "married" Benjamin Franklin.

Your failure to do any basic fact checking regarding this simple example brings to mind your earlier foot-in-mouth failure to realize that Cecil was a noble family.
Peter Stewart
2019-09-25 12:12:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by wjhonson
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by wjhonson
So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.
By your reasoning, Benjamin Franklin's "wife" Deborah Read was actually his mistress.
When a man has a wife, and he is not divorced from her (which he was not), then any other woman is not his "wife", common-law or not. He was not divorced. His wife Anne Lake, remarried, after his death.
Are you seriously going to do NO research at all on this family?
Once again, Deborah Read was not divorced from her husband when she "married" Benjamin Franklin.
Your failure to do any basic fact checking regarding this simple example brings to mind your earlier foot-in-mouth failure to realize that Cecil was a noble family.
Since I'm happily not reading through all of this dreary thread, I have
no idea what is behind this last remark - however, you should be aware
that in England there is no such thing as a "noble family".

This is a Continental custom that never crossed the Channel. In England
peers are noble but apart from individuals holding peerages in their own
right all other members of their families are commoners, including any
of their relatives with courtesy titles.

Peter Stewart
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-25 14:35:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by wjhonson
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by wjhonson
So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.
By your reasoning, Benjamin Franklin's "wife" Deborah Read was actually his mistress.
When a man has a wife, and he is not divorced from her (which he was not), then any other woman is not his "wife", common-law or not. He was not divorced. His wife Anne Lake, remarried, after his death.
Are you seriously going to do NO research at all on this family?
Once again, Deborah Read was not divorced from her husband when she "married" Benjamin Franklin.
Your failure to do any basic fact checking regarding this simple example brings to mind your earlier foot-in-mouth failure to realize that Cecil was a noble family.
Since I'm happily not reading through all of this dreary thread, I have
no idea what is behind this last remark - however, you should be aware
that in England there is no such thing as a "noble family".
This is a Continental custom that never crossed the Channel. In England
peers are noble but apart from individuals holding peerages in their own
right all other members of their families are commoners, including any
of their relatives with courtesy titles.
Peter Stewart
Thank you for that attempt at clarification. By "noble family" I meant a family in which a hereditary title descends. I am well aware that, for example, sons of peers are allowed to sit in the House of Commons while their fathers are alive.
wjhonson
2019-09-25 16:47:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by wjhonson
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by wjhonson
So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.
By your reasoning, Benjamin Franklin's "wife" Deborah Read was actually his mistress.
When a man has a wife, and he is not divorced from her (which he was not), then any other woman is not his "wife", common-law or not. He was not divorced. His wife Anne Lake, remarried, after his death.
Are you seriously going to do NO research at all on this family?
Once again, Deborah Read was not divorced from her husband when she "married" Benjamin Franklin.
Your failure to do any basic fact checking regarding this simple example brings to mind your earlier foot-in-mouth failure to realize that Cecil was a noble family.
Since I'm happily not reading through all of this dreary thread, I have
no idea what is behind this last remark - however, you should be aware
that in England there is no such thing as a "noble family".
This is a Continental custom that never crossed the Channel. In England
peers are noble but apart from individuals holding peerages in their own
right all other members of their families are commoners, including any
of their relatives with courtesy titles.
Peter Stewart
Thank you for that attempt at clarification. By "noble family" I meant a family in which a hereditary title descends. I am well aware that, for example, sons of peers are allowed to sit in the House of Commons while their fathers are alive.
That there was one heriditary title, descending to one of his children, does not make the entire family "noble" however.

And again, I will ask for *any* documentary source, whatsoever, that such a woman even existed at all, and that she was the mistress of Lord Ros.

Any. Source.
Peter Stewart
2019-09-25 23:21:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by wjhonson
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by wjhonson
So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.
By your reasoning, Benjamin Franklin's "wife" Deborah Read was actually his mistress.
When a man has a wife, and he is not divorced from her (which he was not), then any other woman is not his "wife", common-law or not. He was not divorced. His wife Anne Lake, remarried, after his death.
Are you seriously going to do NO research at all on this family?
Once again, Deborah Read was not divorced from her husband when she "married" Benjamin Franklin.
Your failure to do any basic fact checking regarding this simple example brings to mind your earlier foot-in-mouth failure to realize that Cecil was a noble family.
Since I'm happily not reading through all of this dreary thread, I have
no idea what is behind this last remark - however, you should be aware
that in England there is no such thing as a "noble family".
This is a Continental custom that never crossed the Channel. In England
peers are noble but apart from individuals holding peerages in their own
right all other members of their families are commoners, including any
of their relatives with courtesy titles.
Peter Stewart
Thank you for that attempt at clarification. By "noble family" I meant a family in which a hereditary title descends. I am well aware that, for example, sons of peers are allowed to sit in the House of Commons while their fathers are alive.
I assume you mean "a family within which ..." i.e. following a
particular line according to the remainder. Unless there is a special
remainder, most family members are excluded from inheritance of a
peerage just as effectively as are non-relatives.

Peter Stewart
wjhonson
2019-09-26 00:06:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Thank you for that attempt at clarification. By "noble family" I meant a family in which a hereditary title descends. I am well aware that, for example, sons of peers are allowed to sit in the House of Commons while their fathers are alive.
"sons of peers are allowed to sit...."

What?
The House of Commons are people *voted in* to it.
There is no right for anyone to sit in it, who was not voted to it.
Not sure what you mean by this
Peter Stewart
2019-09-26 02:35:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
Post by j***@gmail.com
Thank you for that attempt at clarification. By "noble family" I meant a family in which a hereditary title descends. I am well aware that, for example, sons of peers are allowed to sit in the House of Commons while their fathers are alive.
"sons of peers are allowed to sit...."
What?
The House of Commons are people *voted in* to it.
There is no right for anyone to sit in it, who was not voted to it.
Not sure what you mean by this
Obviously it means "eligible to stand" - the entire House of Commons was
not "allowed to sit" in recent weeks because the queen didn't have the
nous, gumption or principle to ask one simple question and discover that
she was being advised to order an unlawful prorogation.

Peter Stewart
taf
2019-09-26 03:00:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
"sons of peers are allowed to sit...."
What?
The House of Commons are people *voted in* to it.
There is no right for anyone to sit in it, who was not voted to it.
Not sure what you mean by this
It means that they are allowed to sit, if elected. Peers, by nature of their eligibility to sit in the House of Lords, are legally barred from the Commons, and if a member of the Commons inherits or is granted a Peerage, they are required to resign their Commons seat.

taf
Peter Stewart
2019-09-26 05:21:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
"sons of peers are allowed to sit...."
What?
The House of Commons are people *voted in* to it.
There is no right for anyone to sit in it, who was not voted to it.
Not sure what you mean by this
It means that they are allowed to sit, if elected. Peers, by nature of their eligibility to sit in the House of Lords, are legally barred from the Commons, and if a member of the Commons inherits or is granted a Peerage, they are required to resign their Commons seat.
Are they, or is this automatic?

I seem to recall that the only way for a member of the Commons to resign
is to apply for the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, and I don't
think new peers are required to do this.

Peter Stewart
taf
2019-09-26 05:42:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Are they, or is this automatic?
Probably automatic.

The point is that the English political population is divided into 'classes' that define eligibility, and these classes are mutually exclusive.

taf
Peter Stewart
2019-09-26 08:26:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Are they, or is this automatic?
Probably automatic.
The point is that the English political population is divided into 'classes' that define eligibility, and these classes are mutually exclusive.
Not any longer - hereditary peers can stand for election to the House of
Commons while retaining their peerages if they do not sit in the House
of Lords, as very few now do. It was previously possible for peers to be
elected MPs if they first disclaimed their peerage titles (like Anthony
Wedgwood-Benn and Alec Douglas-Home), but since the latest reforms that
is not required for English peers.

Peter Stewart
Richard Smith
2019-09-26 10:33:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
hereditary peers can stand for election to the House of
Commons while retaining their peerages if they do not sit in the House
of Lords, as very few now do. It was previously possible for peers to be
elected MPs if they first disclaimed their peerage titles (like Anthony
Wedgwood-Benn and Alec Douglas-Home), but since the latest reforms that
is not required for English peers.
Only hereditary peers could disclaim their peerages under the Peerage
Act 1963. If you were a life peer you are stuck with it: they
automatically had a seat in the Lords, even after the reforms of
1999/2000, and were therefore barred from sitting in the Commons. It
was only in 2014 that it finally became possible for life peers or
elected (properly called "excepted") hereditary peers to resign their
seat in the Lords – though without resigning the peerage itself. There
have been quite a few such resignations, almost invariably of elderly
peers wishing to leave the political arena. It's not therefore
surprising that none have sought re-election to the Commons, but in
principle they now can.

Richard
Peter Stewart
2019-09-26 11:26:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Smith
Post by Peter Stewart
hereditary peers can stand for election to the House of
Commons while retaining their peerages if they do not sit in the House
of Lords, as very few now do. It was previously possible for peers to be
elected MPs if they first disclaimed their peerage titles (like Anthony
Wedgwood-Benn and Alec Douglas-Home), but since the latest reforms that
is not required for English peers.
Only hereditary peers could disclaim their peerages under the Peerage
Act 1963.  If you were a life peer you are stuck with it:  they
automatically had a seat in the Lords, even after the reforms of
1999/2000, and were therefore barred from sitting in the Commons.  It
was only in 2014 that it finally became possible for life peers or
elected (properly called "excepted") hereditary peers to resign their
seat in the Lords – though without resigning the peerage itself.  There
have been quite a few such resignations, almost invariably of elderly
peers wishing to leave the political arena.  It's not therefore
surprising that none have sought re-election to the Commons, but in
principle they now can.
Thanks - it never crossed my mind that a life peer might have wished to
disclaim the honour once having accepted it, but then many of them are
politicians who as a breed tend to be contrary by nature.

It seems from your explanation that hereditary peers are (or recently
were) over-enfranchised, if they could elect some of their own number to
continuing seats in the House of Lords and then also vote for MPs in the
House of Commons. Is that - or was it even briefly - the case?

Peter Stewart
Richard Smith
2019-09-26 12:19:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks - it never crossed my mind that a life peer might have wished to
disclaim the honour once having accepted it, but then many of them are
politicians who as a breed tend to be contrary by nature.
I can see one situation where it could arise, not simply through
contrariness. In recent years there's been a trend towards appointing
young life peers with the intention of making them junior ministers, as
a way of bringing specialist talent into government. I can imagine
someone who became a life peer in such circumstances, perhaps while
still their 30s, wanting to move to the Commons a few decades later.
Post by Peter Stewart
It seems from your explanation that hereditary peers are (or recently
were) over-enfranchised, if they could elect some of their own number to
continuing seats in the House of Lords and then also vote for MPs in the
House of Commons. Is that - or was it even briefly - the case?
An interesting question! However the answer appears to be no, they were
not over-enfranchised, even briefly. Only hereditary members of the
House of Lords may vote in the election of the so-called excepted
hereditary peers, and members of the House of Lords have never been
allowed to vote in general elections to the Commons.

The elections of the first excepted hereditary peers were held on 27-28
Oct 1999, and as all the hereditary peers were then still members of the
House of Lords, all were entitled to vote. The election did not take
effect immediately and all of the hereditaries remained members of the
Lords until the end of that parliamentary session. I cannot immediately
locate the date of that, but the next session began on 17 Nov, so the
previous one will have ended a few days earlier. On whatever that date
was, those hereditaries who had not been elected to the excepted seats
in the Lords ceased being eligible to vote for excepted hereditary Lords
and immediately became eligible to vote in general elections.

But we have now moved a long way from mediæval genealogy – though
perhaps no further than the deluded fictions which started this thread.

Richard
Peter Stewart
2019-09-26 12:33:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Smith
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks - it never crossed my mind that a life peer might have wished to
disclaim the honour once having accepted it, but then many of them are
politicians who as a breed tend to be contrary by nature.
I can see one situation where it could arise, not simply through
contrariness.  In recent years there's been a trend towards appointing
young life peers with the intention of making them junior ministers, as
a way of bringing specialist talent into government.  I can imagine
someone who became a life peer in such circumstances, perhaps while
still their 30s, wanting to move to the Commons a few decades later.
Post by Peter Stewart
It seems from your explanation that hereditary peers are (or recently
were) over-enfranchised, if they could elect some of their own number to
continuing seats in the House of Lords and then also vote for MPs in the
House of Commons. Is that - or was it even briefly - the case?
An interesting question!  However the answer appears to be no, they were
not over-enfranchised, even briefly.  Only hereditary members of the
House of Lords may vote in the election of the so-called excepted
hereditary peers, and members of the House of Lords have never been
allowed to vote in general elections to the Commons.
The elections of the first excepted hereditary peers were held on 27-28
Oct 1999, and as all the hereditary peers were then still members of the
House of Lords, all were entitled to vote.  The election did not take
effect immediately and all of the hereditaries remained members of the
Lords until the end of that parliamentary session.  I cannot immediately
locate the date of that, but the next session began on 17 Nov, so the
previous one will have ended a few days earlier.  On whatever that date
was, those hereditaries who had not been elected to the excepted seats
in the Lords ceased being eligible to vote for excepted hereditary Lords
and immediately became eligible to vote in general elections.
But we have now moved a long way from mediæval genealogy – though
perhaps no further than the deluded fictions which started this thread.
Well, since all hereditary peers are descended from medieval ancestors
they are as well-qualified for discussion here as anyone else alive
today, including newsgroup members who tell us about their peeves.

If you say the hereditary peers taking part in the first election of
excepted hereditary peers were not over-enfranchised, it seems they were
nonetheless over-represented since the first-elected extended lords &
ladies would be sitting at the same time as MPs for whom the
non-extended ones had subsequently become eligible to vote.

In other words, one peer or peeress could have two recipients of his or
her votes sitting in different houses of the parliament at the same
time. Not quite egalitarian, by my reckoning. Are you sure they weren't
obliged to choose participating in election for just one house or other,
and not both?

Peter Stewart
Richard Smith
2019-09-26 13:22:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
If you say the hereditary peers taking part in the first election of
excepted hereditary peers were not over-enfranchised, it seems they were
nonetheless over-represented since the first-elected extended lords &
ladies would be sitting at the same time as MPs for whom the
non-extended ones had subsequently become eligible to vote.
In other words, one peer or peeress could have two recipients of his or
her votes sitting in different houses of the parliament at the same
time. Not quite egalitarian, by my reckoning. Are you sure they weren't
obliged to choose participating in election for just one house or other,
and not both?
I think I see the point you're making.

Yes, it's true that a peer could participate in the 1999 Lords election
to elect someone to the Lords, and then some time later, participate in
a Commons election while the heredetary peer they voted for remained in
the Lords. As a result they would have voted for two people who were
sitting in Parliament concurrently. I guess that's a bit unfair. But
bear in mind the 1999 Lords elections were for life – fifteen years
later it became possible to stand down from the Lords, but this wasn't
anticipated at the time – and the Lords is much less powerful than the
Commons. Would it have been fairer to have said that hereditaries would
participated in the 1999 Lords election were not allowed to vote in
general elections while any of the batch of hereditaries elected in 1999
remained in the Lords? It's certainly not obvious that it would be.

Such potential inequalities are intrinsic in most democratic systems.
If I move house, I could end up participating in a by-election in my new
home constituency while the MP I voted for in the last general election
is still in office. Maybe some democratic systems don't allow you to
participate in by-elections in such circumstances, but Britain's does.

Richard
Peter Stewart
2019-09-26 22:21:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Smith
Post by Peter Stewart
If you say the hereditary peers taking part in the first election of
excepted hereditary peers were not over-enfranchised, it seems they were
nonetheless over-represented since the first-elected extended lords &
ladies would be sitting at the same time as MPs for whom the
non-extended ones had subsequently become eligible to vote.
In other words, one peer or peeress could have two recipients of his or
her votes sitting in different houses of the parliament at the same
time. Not quite egalitarian, by my reckoning. Are you sure they weren't
obliged to choose participating in election for just one house or other,
and not both?
I think I see the point you're making.
Yes, it's true that a peer could participate in the 1999 Lords election
to elect someone to the Lords, and then some time later, participate in
a Commons election while the heredetary peer they voted for remained in
the Lords.  As a result they would have voted for two people who were
sitting in Parliament concurrently.  I guess that's a bit unfair.  But
bear in mind the 1999 Lords elections were for life – fifteen years
later it became possible to stand down from the Lords, but this wasn't
anticipated at the time – and the Lords is much less powerful than the
Commons.  Would it have been fairer to have said that hereditaries would
participated in the 1999 Lords election were not allowed to vote in
general elections while any of the batch of hereditaries elected in 1999
remained in the Lords?  It's certainly not obvious that it would be.
Such potential inequalities are intrinsic in most democratic systems. If
I move house, I could end up participating in a by-election in my new
home constituency while the MP I voted for in the last general election
is still in office.  Maybe some democratic systems don't allow you to
participate in by-elections in such circumstances, but Britain's does.
Fundamentally apples to oranges - in the UK members of the House of
Commons represent geographic electorates, whereas extended hereditary
peers represent a demographic one. If you move to a different electorate
you are no longer represented by the MP for the one you left, so of
course you are eligible to vote in a by-election wherever you are
currently enrolled.

In the case of extended peers, once the principle of hereditary right to
sit in the House of Lords was removed they effectively became life peers
by election - in that sense, an abdication of the sovereign's role as
fount of honour. Imagine the outrage at Buckingham Palace if the Trades
Unions were given the right to vote in 90+ members of the House of Lords
as a demographic electorate. Yet when this privilege was given to
hereditary peers, not a murmur of dissent.

As I wrote before, the days of rigorously=principled monarchy are in the
past.

Peter Stewart

Richard Smith
2019-09-26 10:21:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Peers, by nature of their eligibility to sit in the House of Lords,
are legally barred from the Commons, and if a member of the Commons
inherits or is granted a Peerage, they are required to resign their
Commons seat.
This used to be the case, but ceased being so when the House of Lords
Act 1999 came into full effect in early 2000. Since then, the number of
hereditary peers in the House of Lords was been fixed at 90, plus the
Earl Marshall (the Duke of Norfolk) and the Lord Great Chamberlain (for
practical purposes, the Marquess of Cholmondeley). When you inherit a
peerage nowadays, unless it is the Dukedom of Norfolk or the Marquessate
of Cholmondeley, you do not now automatically get to sit in the Lords,
and you do not lose your eligibility to sit the in Commons. The 90
seats in the Lords allocated for hereditary peers are now filled on a
per-party basis by election in which all hereditary peers of the party
in question (or amongst the crossbenchers, meaning non-partisan peers,
for those allocated to them).

If you gain a seat in the Lords or are appointed to "an office of the
crown" you automatically and immediately lose your seat in the Commons,
triggering a bye-election for your seat in the Commons. Besides death,
this is the only way of leaving the Commons between elections. This is
why the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds and the Stewardship of the
Manor of Northstead exist. They are offices of the crown with no modern
purpose and no pay that are used solely as a way to allow MPs to resign.
Historically various other similar offices have been used. But there
are lots of genuine offices of the crown too – judges, police
constables, regular members of the armed forces, ambassadors and civil
servants all count too. There have been rare instances of MPs losing
their seats by being appointed a judge.

Richard
taf
2019-09-24 23:32:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
No, he won't. John will yet again make up something and pretend that he heard it from a dead person whom he wishes was his ancestor but for which connection he has no evidence he hasn't himself invented.

taf
P J Evans
2019-09-24 23:46:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by wjhonson
One more cogent point, as if my slinging of waste upon your head was not enough.
Explain just HOW the Barony of Ros, which was his, and the Earldom of Exeter, which was his, would just magically *leap* away from his only son as you claim?
Exactly how did it occur that *both* of these would move to some other person instead of the rightful heir that you claim existed?
Something about your phrasing suggests that you would actually be not such a bad fellow if you weren't being instructed to be aggressively rude.
Regarding your "cogent" point, I already implied that I was not told that William Cecil was formally married to his second wife. Obviously, without a formal marriage, the titles would not pass on to his son.
William Cecil will speak for himself: "William had little time. Sight showed death in the near future. A wife was sent, with the thought of pretending a marriage upon return. William was not able to make any arrangement for the future of the son. Death took William as the price for the wife and son escaping from Venice. William had to act as the sight directed. The sight showed a lineage in the New World. William had no hope, except to trust as William saw."
Making up more shit, I see.
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-24 11:56:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
THIRD GENERATION

William Cecil, 2nd Earl of Exeter (1565-1640)

(July 7, 2019) William was of a similar office as the father. William, however, was unable to overcome a group of unhappy men who wanted there to be a clear discussion. William was able to limit. William could not move openly without risking being removed from his office. This was unfortunate. [INTERRUPTED, cont. July 8)] William had to avoid doing what was necessary until there was a crisis. Then William could take decisive action on (a number of fronts) at the same time. The problem was, a crisis sometimes took too much time, not allowing for thoughtful decisions in other areas. William had to pre-arrange in the mind, and then think at the moment if the pre-arrangement was a good idea. Sometimes circumstances changed. William became good at doing this. Elizabeth was well served. William was in the background. People did not think that William was the man making decisions. Other men took the responsibility for much that William suggested. This was done to ensure that William was not perceived as the man who made the decisions of the realm. This was successful until near the end. Near the end, the son was sacrificed.

(July 15, 2019) William did not think of enduring. The kingdom was under great stress. For William, to think of enduring was to abandon the need to try to keep the ship of state from capsizing. William understood, if the ship of state capsized, William would be swept away among the first victims. The enemy of the House of Tudor grew ever stronger. Elizabeth had no will to combat. Elizabeth simply tried to preserve what she could. William understood that James was of a mind similar to that of Elizabeth. James would bring vigor. James would be constrained by an all-surrounding invisible enemy that controlled too much of the levers of power already. William was unable to do anything except assist the effort to endure as long as possible. The sight was not clear. William was aware of the ability to use the sight in particular circumstances, for the benefit of others. But, for the benefit of the realm, no good outcome was ever seen. William was with the realm on a course toward oblivion or enslavement. William had to hope of a future. There was never any hope in the vision from the sight, at least as far as William tried to see. Now William understands that the hope was in the far future. Perhaps what William did at the end was of help.

(July 25, 2019) William did as the sight directed. The sight was able to communicate. The sight did not have a good expectation for England. America must rise, and England and Scotland would each contribute to the rise of a new way in America. William did not have a good idea of what William should do, until the widow and son of the son of William went to Virginia. Then the way was clear.

(Aug. 7, 2019) William spent the final year of the life in retirement. William had an official title and collected a salary, but did no real work. The appointed assistant occasionally inquired. This led William to realize that England and now Scotland were being led to ruin. William had to not deplore. The assistant was not in a position to do anything of importance. William was a respected relic and would ruin the respect if William expressed a strong negative opinion. William was simply holding on to what could be held, as England slipped from the grasp of men who wanted the good of the realm. William had to feel bitter regret. William also felt a stirring of excited expectation as a seed of the family was planted in a new world that was not yet corrupted, although William heard of the abomination of slavery being introduced. William had to hope that this would not taint the family of the young grandson. William imagines that this was a vain hope.
wjhonson
2019-09-24 16:34:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Your posts do not belong in this group
Loading...