Nat's Royal Review in TAG

[a***@alltel.net]

The comments below from John Brandon are somewhat odd. It sounds as
though he would have preferred a short review of Doug Richardson's
Plantagenet book that was either all ecstatic or all condemnatory (for
an example of the former, see the review in the current National
Genealogical Society Quarterly). What Nat has provided is far more
nuanced that John apparently likes; that is, Nat's review-article in
TAG is a careful evaluation and discussion. From its very nature, it
will include a "few ...'buts' ," whether devastating or not.

Nat does not "muse about how he would have done it differently"; he
shows explicitly how standard modern scholarship would have handled the
citations differently; he does not mention himself at all in that
discussion.

Why would "the whole production ... probably have been more tactful and
tasteful confined to 200 or 300 words in the review section at the
back" of TAG? Is John suggested that the review-article in the latest
TAG is tactless and tasteless--or in suggesting this, am I as deaf to
John's nuances as, unfortunately, he is to Nat's?

Finally this is a "review article"; half of it is the best and most
detailed discussion to date of the evolution of American interest in
royal and medieval ancestry, beginning with the egregious Charles H.
Browning in 1882. Such an article goes much further than the book or
books on which it is based.

Everyone is entitled to disagree with any article, but it is important
to understand the bases of a careful critical evaluation as well as the
difference between a review "confined to 200 or 300 words" and a
ten-page review article.

DAVID L. GREENE, FASG
Coeditor and publisher, TAG



[John Brandon]: I've finally been able to read Nat Taylor's review of
Doug's first
book, and really was somewhat disappointed. It reminded me of the
French lady of the _ancien regime_, "who never spoke in praise of
anyone without adding a few devastating 'buts'." Nat mostly seems to
be musing about how he'd have done it differently, which he may have
thought was more tactful than direct negative statements about Doug's
work (but then, the whole production would probably have been more
tactful and tasteful confined to 200 or 300 words in the review section
at the back).

[John Brandon]

Hmmm, well, it's highly irritating to have so much made of Nat, simply
because he's a professor (well, "of sorts"). When you announced the
contents of the latest issue to the newsgroup you said: "The review
[of _Plantagenet Ancestry_] is in this issue--but it is actually a
review article of some ten pages by Nat, who is one of the leading
experts in medieval genealogy."

That isn't true at all, at least in my book. Nat is an 'expert' in
medieval HISTORY (at least I presume so; I haven't read any of his
articles). He has written only two pieces that deal with real
genealogy, rather than theory (the St. William-Makhir thing and the
Sanca de Ayala thing, right?). His posts on sgm haven't really been
very informative (discourses on theory, and non-committal, professorial
sorts of questions), and he is not certainly not adept at finding new
"gateway" ancestors (not able to?).

Douglas, on the other hand, has a genuine flair for new discoveries
(never mind about a few 'near-misses,' greatly exaggerated). If you
check Chris Phillips' webpages of corrections to CP, you'll notice
Douglas Richardson's name on at least 60 or 70% of the entries.
There's a reason for that--Douglas is one of the most creative
genealogists working. I would rank him only below George Moriarty in
my personal list of the greatest American genealogists.

David, is is remiss of you to encourage someone (no matter what his
academic credentials) to write this snide, haughty drivel about a very
valuable publication that has a wealth of information on new 'gateway
ancestors.' And, Dave, with your health in such a dubious state, isn't
it high time you relinquished control of TAG to Joe Anderson? It is
dismaying to have every TAG delayed six months [OR MORE], merely
because "David Greene has had another bad spell." You will destroy the
subscription base for your beloved publication if you get much further
behind.

[a***@alltel.net]

Talk about "highly irritating"!

DAVID GREENE

[John Brandon]

Post by a***@alltel.net
Talk about "highly irritating"!

Oh, get back to editing the January issue of TAG, or selling your
latest collection of L. Frank Baum memorabilia, or whatever ....!

[D. Spencer Hines]

Nat Taylor's expertise, such as it is, is in SPANISH Mediaeval History.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Brad Verity]

Post by John Brandon
Hmmm, well, it's highly irritating to have so much made of Nat, simply
because he's a professor (well, "of sorts").

What was the "so much made" of him, and by whom? I thought the posts
about his career, tenure, etc. that were made a couple days ago to be
in bad taste.

Post by John Brandon
When you announced the
contents of the latest issue to the newsgroup you said: "The review
[of _Plantagenet Ancestry_] is in this issue--but it is actually a
review article of some ten pages by Nat, who is one of the leading
experts in medieval genealogy."

Is this the "so much made" that you're referring to?

Post by John Brandon
That isn't true at all, at least in my book. Nat is an 'expert' in
medieval HISTORY (at least I presume so; I haven't read any of his
articles).

I've read one, about Beatrice Fettiplace, widow of Gilbert, Lord
Talbot, and found it to be well-researched and clearly presented.

And I would hope that any genealogist who is passing him/herself off as
an 'expert' in medieval genealogy would have a very strong grasp of
medieval history. As for medieval historians, though there are some
who gloss over genealogy and focus on economics, politics, etc., there
are others, such as Michael Hicks and Christine Carpenter, who take
genealogy and family relationships very seriously. Nat, from the
article I read, falls into the latter category.

Post by John Brandon
He has written only two pieces that deal with real
genealogy, rather than theory (the St. William-Makhir thing and the
Sanca de Ayala thing, right?).

There's also the Beatrice Fettiplace one I read. And, what do you mean
by 'real' genealogy?

Post by John Brandon
His posts on sgm haven't really been
very informative (discourses on theory, and non-committal, professorial
sorts of questions),

I've found them quite informative, and even better, rational. Perhaps
he hasn't posted much on areas of interest to you.

Post by John Brandon
and he is not certainly not adept at finding new
"gateway" ancestors (not able to?).

Probably he's not trying to. Not every person who posts on this
newsgroup is in the practice of searching for gateway ancestors. To my
knowledge, I'm not descended at all from the medieval English nobility,
yet I still enjoy studying them. Rather than working from present day
backwards, I've been focusing on Edward I forwards. It's a long,
painstaking, but rewarding, process. I've barely got into the 15th
century, so the 'gateway ancestors' haven't even come to my notice yet.

I hope your definition of 'real' medieval genealogy is not confined to
gateway ancestors and their lines of descent. I'd say that is just one
aspect of a much broader field.

Post by John Brandon
Douglas, on the other hand,

Ah, yes, Douglas Richardson again. It's amazing how he polarizes this
newsgroup. You're either for him or against him, there's no middle
ground.

Post by John Brandon
has a genuine flair for new discoveries

'Genuine', 'discoveries' - how the praises sing.

I would like to have a serious discussion on this, but I need examples
of what his 'new' discoveries (can someone make 'old' discoveries?)
have been.

Post by John Brandon
(never mind about a few 'near-misses,' greatly exaggerated).

Oh yes, let's sweep those under the rug.

I, again, would like to have a serious discussion about the
near-misses, but would need specific examples. I'll start with one -
Amie de Gaveston, which debate went on and on on this newsgroup for
over two years.

Was it a great exaggeration to correct Douglas's placement of Amie as
the bastard daughter of Margaret de Clare? A placement that
misinterpreted principles of medieval inheritance and illegitimacy?
And that - thankfully - did not make into PA3 to mislead thousands of
readers who aren't experts in the medieval era.

Post by John Brandon
If you
check Chris Phillips' webpages of corrections to CP, you'll notice
Douglas Richardson's name on at least 60 or 70% of the entries.
There's a reason for that--Douglas is one of the most creative
genealogists working.

What on earth does creativity have to do with CP corrections? It is
hardly thinking outside the box to double-check the research of the
editors of CP and to not swallow every statement it makes as
authoritative.

As for why Douglas appears on Chris' website more often than anybody
else - I'd say it's because he used CP more than anyone else in the
last 5 years. Faris's 'Plantagenet Ancestry' relied heavily on CP as a
source, and Douglas had to use it frequently in his expansion for PA3.
He also posts the CP errors he finds, and seems to enjoy whatever
recognition that gives him. Hmmmm, could the reason why so many CP
corrections on Chris' site (and as posts on the newsgroup) are from
Douglas have anything to do with this enjoyment of recognition? Is
that a circular argument?

Post by John Brandon
I would rank him only below George Moriarty in
my personal list of the greatest American genealogists.

You of course can put him wherever you like on your list. I have no
idea who George Moriarty is, so your statement above gave me a little
chuckle - that you ranked Douglas below someone who is a complete
unknown to me.

Post by John Brandon
David, is is remiss of you to encourage someone (no matter what his
academic credentials) to write this snide, haughty drivel

So Nat's review is "snide, haughty drivel". I take it you didn't think
much of it.

David is the editor of TAG, and can assign a review to, or accept one
from, anyone he wants. You, of course, have the right to disagree with
his decision, and can always cancel your subscription if you find his
editorial decisions so distressing to you.

Post by John Brandon
about a very
valuable publication that has a wealth of information on new 'gateway
ancestors.'

"Very valuable", "wealth of information". How those praises sing!

Post by John Brandon
And, Dave, with your health in such a dubious state, isn't
it high time you relinquished control of TAG to Joe Anderson? It is
dismaying to have every TAG delayed six months [OR MORE], merely
because "David Greene has had another bad spell." You will destroy the
subscription base for your beloved publication if you get much further
behind.

This last comment is what made me make this response post. It's
mud-slinging disguised (poorly) as frustration. You aren't concerned
about the man's health, merely about the delays in publication. It's a
written slap in the face. Exactly the kind of bullying that Tim
Powys-Lybbe points out occurs frequently on this newsgroup, especially
where Douglas Richardson is concerned.

And of course you only bring it up at all because David, as editor,
published a review that upset you. There are folks here on the
newsgroup and in the genealogical community who do not hold PA3 in the
high regard you do. Get over it.

You have every right to sing Douglas' praises. What you don't have the
right to do is force (bully) us all to join in the chorus.

----Brad

[m***@yahoo.com]

Brad it's so funny how you people also like to bully but you never
admit it. Please get off your Hot Palm Springs horse. What is good for
the goose is good for gander. If he can't stand the heat he need's to
get out of the Kitchen. You also don't have a right to bully and force
everyone to join in chorus.

--Mike

Post by Brad Verity

Post by John Brandon
Hmmm, well, it's highly irritating to have so much made of Nat, simply
because he's a professor (well, "of sorts").

What was the "so much made" of him, and by whom? I thought the posts
about his career, tenure, etc. that were made a couple days ago to be
in bad taste.

Post by John Brandon
When you announced the
contents of the latest issue to the newsgroup you said: "The review
[of _Plantagenet Ancestry_] is in this issue--but it is actually a
review article of some ten pages by Nat, who is one of the leading
experts in medieval genealogy."

Is this the "so much made" that you're referring to?

Post by John Brandon
That isn't true at all, at least in my book. Nat is an 'expert' in
medieval HISTORY (at least I presume so; I haven't read any of his
articles).

I've read one, about Beatrice Fettiplace, widow of Gilbert, Lord
Talbot, and found it to be well-researched and clearly presented.
And I would hope that any genealogist who is passing him/herself off as
an 'expert' in medieval genealogy would have a very strong grasp of
medieval history. As for medieval historians, though there are some
who gloss over genealogy and focus on economics, politics, etc., there
are others, such as Michael Hicks and Christine Carpenter, who take
genealogy and family relationships very seriously. Nat, from the
article I read, falls into the latter category.

Post by John Brandon
He has written only two pieces that deal with real
genealogy, rather than theory (the St. William-Makhir thing and the
Sanca de Ayala thing, right?).

There's also the Beatrice Fettiplace one I read. And, what do you mean
by 'real' genealogy?

Post by John Brandon
His posts on sgm haven't really been
very informative (discourses on theory, and non-committal, professorial
sorts of questions),

I've found them quite informative, and even better, rational. Perhaps
he hasn't posted much on areas of interest to you.

Post by John Brandon
and he is not certainly not adept at finding new
"gateway" ancestors (not able to?).

Probably he's not trying to. Not every person who posts on this
newsgroup is in the practice of searching for gateway ancestors. To my
knowledge, I'm not descended at all from the medieval English nobility,
yet I still enjoy studying them. Rather than working from present day
backwards, I've been focusing on Edward I forwards. It's a long,
painstaking, but rewarding, process. I've barely got into the 15th
century, so the 'gateway ancestors' haven't even come to my notice yet.
I hope your definition of 'real' medieval genealogy is not confined to
gateway ancestors and their lines of descent. I'd say that is just one
aspect of a much broader field.

Post by John Brandon
Douglas, on the other hand,

Ah, yes, Douglas Richardson again. It's amazing how he polarizes this
newsgroup. You're either for him or against him, there's no middle
ground.

Post by John Brandon
has a genuine flair for new discoveries

'Genuine', 'discoveries' - how the praises sing.
I would like to have a serious discussion on this, but I need examples
of what his 'new' discoveries (can someone make 'old' discoveries?)
have been.

Post by John Brandon
(never mind about a few 'near-misses,' greatly exaggerated).

Oh yes, let's sweep those under the rug.
I, again, would like to have a serious discussion about the
near-misses, but would need specific examples. I'll start with one -
Amie de Gaveston, which debate went on and on on this newsgroup for
over two years.
Was it a great exaggeration to correct Douglas's placement of Amie as
the bastard daughter of Margaret de Clare? A placement that
misinterpreted principles of medieval inheritance and illegitimacy?
And that - thankfully - did not make into PA3 to mislead thousands of
readers who aren't experts in the medieval era.

Post by John Brandon
If you
check Chris Phillips' webpages of corrections to CP, you'll notice
Douglas Richardson's name on at least 60 or 70% of the entries.
There's a reason for that--Douglas is one of the most creative
genealogists working.

What on earth does creativity have to do with CP corrections? It is
hardly thinking outside the box to double-check the research of the
editors of CP and to not swallow every statement it makes as
authoritative.
As for why Douglas appears on Chris' website more often than anybody
else - I'd say it's because he used CP more than anyone else in the
last 5 years. Faris's 'Plantagenet Ancestry' relied heavily on CP as a
source, and Douglas had to use it frequently in his expansion for PA3.
He also posts the CP errors he finds, and seems to enjoy whatever
recognition that gives him. Hmmmm, could the reason why so many CP
corrections on Chris' site (and as posts on the newsgroup) are from
Douglas have anything to do with this enjoyment of recognition? Is
that a circular argument?

Post by John Brandon
I would rank him only below George Moriarty in
my personal list of the greatest American genealogists.

You of course can put him wherever you like on your list. I have no
idea who George Moriarty is, so your statement above gave me a little
chuckle - that you ranked Douglas below someone who is a complete
unknown to me.

Post by John Brandon
David, is is remiss of you to encourage someone (no matter what his
academic credentials) to write this snide, haughty drivel

So Nat's review is "snide, haughty drivel". I take it you didn't think
much of it.
David is the editor of TAG, and can assign a review to, or accept one
from, anyone he wants. You, of course, have the right to disagree with
his decision, and can always cancel your subscription if you find his
editorial decisions so distressing to you.

Post by John Brandon
about a very
valuable publication that has a wealth of information on new 'gateway
ancestors.'

"Very valuable", "wealth of information". How those praises sing!

Post by John Brandon
And, Dave, with your health in such a dubious state, isn't
it high time you relinquished control of TAG to Joe Anderson? It is
dismaying to have every TAG delayed six months [OR MORE], merely
because "David Greene has had another bad spell." You will destroy the
subscription base for your beloved publication if you get much further
behind.

This last comment is what made me make this response post. It's
mud-slinging disguised (poorly) as frustration. You aren't concerned
about the man's health, merely about the delays in publication. It's a
written slap in the face. Exactly the kind of bullying that Tim
Powys-Lybbe points out occurs frequently on this newsgroup, especially
where Douglas Richardson is concerned.
And of course you only bring it up at all because David, as editor,
published a review that upset you. There are folks here on the
newsgroup and in the genealogical community who do not hold PA3 in the
high regard you do. Get over it.
You have every right to sing Douglas' praises. What you don't have the
right to do is force (bully) us all to join in the chorus.
----Brad

[Leo]

On the one hand you say " What is good for the goose is good for the gander"
and at the same time you seem to deny anyone the right to bully a
bully.....:-)

Someone is missing out, is it the goose or is it the gander?

Do you qualify someone as a bully because he is exposing a bully?


---- Original Message -----
From: <***@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Nat's Royal Review in TAG

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Brad it's so funny how you people also like to bully but you never
admit it. Please get off your Hot Palm Springs horse. What is good for
the goose is good for gander. If he can't stand the heat he need's to
get out of the Kitchen. You also don't have a right to bully and force
everyone to join in chorus.
--Mike

Post by Brad Verity

Post by John Brandon
Hmmm, well, it's highly irritating to have so much made of Nat, simply
because he's a professor (well, "of sorts").

What was the "so much made" of him, and by whom? I thought the posts
about his career, tenure, etc. that were made a couple days ago to be
in bad taste.

Post by John Brandon
When you announced the
contents of the latest issue to the newsgroup you said: "The review
[of _Plantagenet Ancestry_] is in this issue--but it is actually a
review article of some ten pages by Nat, who is one of the leading
experts in medieval genealogy."

Is this the "so much made" that you're referring to?

Post by John Brandon
That isn't true at all, at least in my book. Nat is an 'expert' in
medieval HISTORY (at least I presume so; I haven't read any of his
articles).

I've read one, about Beatrice Fettiplace, widow of Gilbert, Lord
Talbot, and found it to be well-researched and clearly presented.
And I would hope that any genealogist who is passing him/herself off as
an 'expert' in medieval genealogy would have a very strong grasp of
medieval history. As for medieval historians, though there are some
who gloss over genealogy and focus on economics, politics, etc., there
are others, such as Michael Hicks and Christine Carpenter, who take
genealogy and family relationships very seriously. Nat, from the
article I read, falls into the latter category.

Post by John Brandon
He has written only two pieces that deal with real
genealogy, rather than theory (the St. William-Makhir thing and the
Sanca de Ayala thing, right?).

There's also the Beatrice Fettiplace one I read. And, what do you mean
by 'real' genealogy?

Post by John Brandon
His posts on sgm haven't really been
very informative (discourses on theory, and non-committal, professorial
sorts of questions),

I've found them quite informative, and even better, rational. Perhaps
he hasn't posted much on areas of interest to you.

Post by John Brandon
and he is not certainly not adept at finding new
"gateway" ancestors (not able to?).

Probably he's not trying to. Not every person who posts on this
newsgroup is in the practice of searching for gateway ancestors. To my
knowledge, I'm not descended at all from the medieval English nobility,
yet I still enjoy studying them. Rather than working from present day
backwards, I've been focusing on Edward I forwards. It's a long,
painstaking, but rewarding, process. I've barely got into the 15th
century, so the 'gateway ancestors' haven't even come to my notice yet.
I hope your definition of 'real' medieval genealogy is not confined to
gateway ancestors and their lines of descent. I'd say that is just one
aspect of a much broader field.

Post by John Brandon
Douglas, on the other hand,

Ah, yes, Douglas Richardson again. It's amazing how he polarizes this
newsgroup. You're either for him or against him, there's no middle
ground.

Post by John Brandon
has a genuine flair for new discoveries

'Genuine', 'discoveries' - how the praises sing.
I would like to have a serious discussion on this, but I need examples
of what his 'new' discoveries (can someone make 'old' discoveries?)
have been.

Post by John Brandon
(never mind about a few 'near-misses,' greatly exaggerated).

Oh yes, let's sweep those under the rug.
I, again, would like to have a serious discussion about the
near-misses, but would need specific examples. I'll start with one -
Amie de Gaveston, which debate went on and on on this newsgroup for
over two years.
Was it a great exaggeration to correct Douglas's placement of Amie as
the bastard daughter of Margaret de Clare? A placement that
misinterpreted principles of medieval inheritance and illegitimacy?
And that - thankfully - did not make into PA3 to mislead thousands of
readers who aren't experts in the medieval era.

Post by John Brandon
If you
check Chris Phillips' webpages of corrections to CP, you'll notice
Douglas Richardson's name on at least 60 or 70% of the entries.
There's a reason for that--Douglas is one of the most creative
genealogists working.

What on earth does creativity have to do with CP corrections? It is
hardly thinking outside the box to double-check the research of the
editors of CP and to not swallow every statement it makes as
authoritative.
As for why Douglas appears on Chris' website more often than anybody
else - I'd say it's because he used CP more than anyone else in the
last 5 years. Faris's 'Plantagenet Ancestry' relied heavily on CP as a
source, and Douglas had to use it frequently in his expansion for PA3.
He also posts the CP errors he finds, and seems to enjoy whatever
recognition that gives him. Hmmmm, could the reason why so many CP
corrections on Chris' site (and as posts on the newsgroup) are from
Douglas have anything to do with this enjoyment of recognition? Is
that a circular argument?

Post by John Brandon
I would rank him only below George Moriarty in
my personal list of the greatest American genealogists.

You of course can put him wherever you like on your list. I have no
idea who George Moriarty is, so your statement above gave me a little
chuckle - that you ranked Douglas below someone who is a complete
unknown to me.

Post by John Brandon
David, is is remiss of you to encourage someone (no matter what his
academic credentials) to write this snide, haughty drivel

So Nat's review is "snide, haughty drivel". I take it you didn't think
much of it.
David is the editor of TAG, and can assign a review to, or accept one
from, anyone he wants. You, of course, have the right to disagree with
his decision, and can always cancel your subscription if you find his
editorial decisions so distressing to you.

Post by John Brandon
about a very
valuable publication that has a wealth of information on new 'gateway
ancestors.'

"Very valuable", "wealth of information". How those praises sing!

Post by John Brandon
And, Dave, with your health in such a dubious state, isn't
it high time you relinquished control of TAG to Joe Anderson? It is
dismaying to have every TAG delayed six months [OR MORE], merely
because "David Greene has had another bad spell." You will destroy the
subscription base for your beloved publication if you get much further
behind.

This last comment is what made me make this response post. It's
mud-slinging disguised (poorly) as frustration. You aren't concerned
about the man's health, merely about the delays in publication. It's a
written slap in the face. Exactly the kind of bullying that Tim
Powys-Lybbe points out occurs frequently on this newsgroup, especially
where Douglas Richardson is concerned.
And of course you only bring it up at all because David, as editor,
published a review that upset you. There are folks here on the
newsgroup and in the genealogical community who do not hold PA3 in the
high regard you do. Get over it.
You have every right to sing Douglas' praises. What you don't have the
right to do is force (bully) us all to join in the chorus.
----Brad

[John Brandon]

Thank you for that amusing response, Bradley (almost like being shouted
at across cyberspace!). I'll have to go back and read it more
carefully, but you really should know who Moriarty is ...

Now, back to the topic of Professor David Greene and how he's
bringing TAG down (not to be mean, or anything ...!).

The current issue, p. 78, has an "Ingersoll Correction" that
states:

"Several readers have pointed out an editorial blunder in Janna
Bennington Larson's second Ingersoll article in the October 2004
issue: The generations were confused. The Richard Ingersoll of the
title was of the fourth generation, not the third, and on p. 282, he
should be identified as the son of Richard3 Ingersoll (John2, Richard1)
and Sarah (Buckley), not of John2 Ingersoll (who was Richard4's
grandfather) and Sarah (Buckley) (who was his mother). We regret the
errors.

It's pretty bad when the editor can't keep elementary details
straight, but it looks like there are more bloopers in the current
issue (p. 39):

"John Millington was sentenced to be whipped or pay a fine of 10li
for his great misdemeanor" in the March 1664 term of court. John
Gould agreed to pay the fine. Millington was bound for L20 with Gould
and Daniel Clarke as sureties. An unnamed woman deposed that in
January 1663

her brother Edmon Bridges asked her to go to Salem with him but she
stayed in their house while he and his wife went. John Milinton
offered uncleanness to her and she told him that she would not yield to
him for all Topsfelld [sic]. Then he went away to the fire and prayed
that deponent would forgive him, etc.
Sarah Bridges, aged about thirty years, deposed that he sister
sent John Milinton to the house for some meal, etc.[footnote 10]

[September] 1664, when he was discharged of his bond for good
behavior.[footnote 11] As several persons moved from Essex County to
Connecticut in the mid-1600s, it is possible that he was the same man
as the John Millin[g]ton who first appeared in Connecticut in 1668 John
Millington's last appearance in Essex County occurred on the 27 7th
month. Two short nineteenth-century manuscript histories state that
John's father was John Millington of Yorkshire and that a paternal
uncle, Gilbert Millington, signed the death warrant of Charles
I.[footnote 12] English origins of this family have not been studied.

In this case, the footnotes don't clear up anything at all. David,
won't Dr. Arthaud be upset at the gobbledygook that has invaded his
article? Isn't it time you handed over to someone with a few
braincells left unfried?

[Vickie Elam White]

John,

As someone who has "known" you for many years here
on the newsgroup/mailing list and corresponded with
you privately on various matters over the years, I am
surprised at the change in you!

David is certainly not bringing TAG down. No journal
on the face of this earth is without error, they're always
running corrections and additions. And even the "great
ones" in genealogy, such as Shepard, have made committed
some whoppers in their day. Just see what a muddle he
made of the Corbet-Mallory matter.

You are entitled to your opinion of TAG, but there is
absolutely no need for the tone you've taken and your
choice of words. It is far beneath you.

Vickie Elam White

"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Thank you for that amusing response, Bradley (almost like being
shouted
at across cyberspace!). I'll have to go back and read it more
carefully, but you really should know who Moriarty is ...

Now, back to the topic of Professor David Greene and how he's
bringing TAG down (not to be mean, or anything ...!).

The current issue, p. 78, has an "Ingersoll Correction" that
states:

"Several readers have pointed out an editorial blunder in Janna
Bennington Larson's second Ingersoll article in the October 2004
issue: The generations were confused. The Richard Ingersoll of
the
title was of the fourth generation, not the third, and on p. 282,
he
should be identified as the son of Richard3 Ingersoll (John2,
Richard1)
and Sarah (Buckley), not of John2 Ingersoll (who was Richard4's
grandfather) and Sarah (Buckley) (who was his mother). We regret
the
errors.

It's pretty bad when the editor can't keep elementary details
straight, but it looks like there are more bloopers in the
current
issue (p. 39):

"John Millington was sentenced to be whipped or pay a fine of
10li
for his great misdemeanor" in the March 1664 term of court. John
Gould agreed to pay the fine. Millington was bound for L20 with
Gould
and Daniel Clarke as sureties. An unnamed woman deposed that in
January 1663

her brother Edmon Bridges asked her to go to Salem with him but
she
stayed in their house while he and his wife went. John Milinton
offered uncleanness to her and she told him that she would not
yield to
him for all Topsfelld [sic]. Then he went away to the fire and
prayed
that deponent would forgive him, etc.
Sarah Bridges, aged about thirty years, deposed that he
sister
sent John Milinton to the house for some meal, etc.[footnote 10]

[September] 1664, when he was discharged of his bond for
good
behavior.[footnote 11] As several persons moved from Essex
County to
Connecticut in the mid-1600s, it is possible that he was the same
man
as the John Millin[g]ton who first appeared in Connecticut in
1668 John
Millington's last appearance in Essex County occurred on the 27
7th
month. Two short nineteenth-century manuscript histories state
that
John's father was John Millington of Yorkshire and that a
paternal
uncle, Gilbert Millington, signed the death warrant of Charles
I.[footnote 12] English origins of this family have not been
studied.

In this case, the footnotes don't clear up anything at all.
David,
won't Dr. Arthaud be upset at the gobbledygook that has invaded
his
article? Isn't it time you handed over to someone with a few
braincells left unfried?

[John Brandon]

Even regretted truths sometimes have to be said. I'm only pointing out
what others are thinking.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yep...

By the same token, we don't need any more mealy-mouthed, hip-pocket
analyses of "What Nat Taylor Really Meant" ---- peddled to us as
second-hand hearsay.

DSH

"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

| Even regretted truths sometimes have to be said. I'm only pointing
| out what others are thinking.

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by John Brandon
Even regretted truths sometimes have to be said. I'm only pointing out
what others are thinking.

Somewhat tricky if we don't have TAG.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

Post by John Brandon
Even regretted truths sometimes have to be said. I'm only pointing out
what others are thinking.

Somewhat tricky if we don't have TAG.

However many people in the confidence of Brandon may think (or think they
think) something, it does not become a "truth" just from his and/or their
dim attempts at ratiocination.

SGM readers certainly don't owe him the attention of prolonging this absurd
and insolent discussion.

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hilarious!

Virginia, it just doesn't get any better than this!

Peter 'Pogue' Stewart is showing off his damaged brain again --
anserinely flaunting it from the proscenium.

First he imagined he was responsible for what David Greene and several
others have written here -- and now he seems to have morphed into Queen
Victoria -- and is telling folks they are "insolent" -- and he is not
amused.

Peter, while in a drunken stupor, fell off that motorcycle and cracked
his head against a cobblestone when he was a spunky, but callow and
foolish, youth at Oxford -- and the effects continually come back to
bite him in the arse on USENET.

Stewart insists he was merely "tipsy" of course.

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

Deus Vult.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[John Brandon]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
and now he seems to have morphed into Queen

Victoria -- and is telling folks they are "insolent" -- and he is not
amused.

The last time I heard that word it was coming out of the mouth of
Barbara Leigh-Hunt as Lady Catherine de Burgh in the Langton production
of "Pride and Prejudice." Of course, Peter may actually be a
descendant of Lady Catherine de Burgh ...

[John Brandon]

Of course, Peter may actually be a descendant of Lady Catherine de Burgh ...

A 'spiritual' descendant, if not a literal one ...

[Peter Stewart]

This twit who accuses other people of posting "smoke-screens" when they
can't or won't address the point at issue now shows us how crudely and
ineffectively this kind of evasion can be done.

Public discussion of another person's state of fitness, mental or physical,
by fools who can know nothing of the facts in these matters, is just as low
and inappropriate now as it ever was. As far as I know (and that surely goes
for Hines and Brandon too, who only lamely try to make a distracting jibe)
Queen Victoria never had to make strictures about such malicious and stupid
behaviour.

There is nothing "anserine" about my remarks - Hines is merely
characterising his own responses - and hence no attempt to counter what I
have said.

If Brandon can't get his doodles published in TAG, and treats Usenet to his
oafishness instead, that is no reflection on the competence of anyone else.

If Hines knew any Latin, instead of inanely pretending that he does, he
would recognise the meaning of "insolence". The word is perfectly apposite.

Peter Stewart

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Hilarious!
Virginia, it just doesn't get any better than this!
Peter 'Pogue' Stewart is showing off his damaged brain again --
anserinely flaunting it from the proscenium.
First he imagined he was responsible for what David Greene and several
others have written here -- and now he seems to have morphed into Queen
Victoria -- and is telling folks they are "insolent" -- and he is not
amused.
Peter, while in a drunken stupor, fell off that motorcycle and cracked
his head against a cobblestone when he was a spunky, but callow and
foolish, youth at Oxford -- and the effects continually come back to
bite him in the arse on USENET.
Stewart insists he was merely "tipsy" of course.
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
Deus Vult.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor

[Stewart Baldwin]

On 2 Jul 2005 11:56:42 -0700, "John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[vicious insults deleted]

I think that most will see Mr. Brandon's sleazy personal attacks for
exactly what they are, but there are a couple of genealogical points
which require further comment.

First, there is the insinuation that the finding of gateway ancestors
is somehow a more worthwhile endeavor than various other topics of
genealogical research. In fact, the market for a book giving such
links is driven by people who do genealogy for the enjoyment, and
there is nothing wrong with that, but it hardly makes such discoveries
inherently superior to genealogical discoveries in other topics which
are done by people whose genealogical lie elsewhere, just as the
inherent scholarly value is not affected by whether the genealogist
does the work for enjoyment, profit, or a combination of the two (and
I suspect that most people in the second category are also in the
third). What matters the most to many of us is not the specific
topic, but the accuracy of the information given and the quality of
the documentation. Scholarly quality and area of interest are two
different things.

Next, I find it strange to suggest that Nat should have been limited
to 200 to 300 words. Some of the "puff pieces" posing as reviews
which were posted to this forum went well beyond that limit, and were
written by individuals with no evident experience in documenting
medieval genealogies, something which produced no objection from Mr.
Brandon that I can recall. In fact, I think that the longer review
had the ultimate result of making it more positive. Faced with a
limit of a few hundred words, Nat would have had little choice to
concentrate most of the review on the quality of the documentation,
which is where most of the negative comments were made. Given more
space, Nat was able to discuss Doug's predecessors in the field,
resulting in a more balanced review in which RPA is seen as being a
step forward compared to its predecessors, while still falling short
of what is expected in modern scholarly genealogy.

Finally, if Mr. Brandon has any valid points to make about Nat's
review, wouldn't it be more appropriate to address specific points of
the review with which he disagrees, rather than resorting to the cheap
tactics seen so far?

Stewart Baldwin

[Stewart Baldwin]

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 05:20:35 GMT, Stewart Baldwin

...whose genealogical lie elsewhere, ...

OOPS. I meant to type "whose genealogical INTERESTS" lie elsewhere"

Stewart Baldwin

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Stewart Baldwin
[vicious insults deleted]
I think that most will see Mr. Brandon's sleazy personal attacks for
exactly what they are, but there are a couple of genealogical points
which require further comment.

<snip>

Post by Stewart Baldwin
Finally, if Mr. Brandon has any valid points to make about Nat's
review, wouldn't it be more appropriate to address specific points of
the review with which he disagrees, rather than resorting to the cheap
tactics seen so far?

Brandon NEVER manages to do this, whether directly challenged to the attempt
or otherwise by normal standards of discourse obliged to try by his own
foolish interjections.

Apart from the odd erratic dump of information gleaned from A2A, he
specialises in the vapid and the vile - most of the time he is communing
only with himself anyway, like a baboon scratching his fundament. This is
what he takes to be the real study of genealogy.

Peter Stewart

[John Brandon]

<<Apart from the odd erratic dump of information gleaned from A2A, he
specialises in the vapid and the vile - most of the time he is
communing only with himself anyway, like a baboon scratching his
fundament.

I don't believe I've ever said anything nearly as nasty as the blurb
above, whatever 'nasty' and 'vicious' (silly word) things I MAY have
said.

If Peter Stewart had any knowledge of the time period and millieu that
interests me (16th and 17th century English and North American
colonial), he would realize that I have posted some fairly interesting
clues and valuable observations over the years. As it is, he's so
ashamed (probably with good reason) of his recent, exalted British
ancestry (Dukes, Earls and such), that he affects to have no interest
in the time period and retreats to the Carolingian period (but has he
published anything even in _that_ area? I'm still unsure). But the
apple doesn't fall far from the tree--he still becomes 'livid with
rage,' pronounces people 'insolent' in the probable mode of some of his
quite recent female ancestors.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by John Brandon
<<Apart from the odd erratic dump of information gleaned from A2A, he
specialises in the vapid and the vile - most of the time he is
communing only with himself anyway, like a baboon scratching his
fundament.
I don't believe I've ever said anything nearly as nasty as the blurb
above, whatever 'nasty' and 'vicious' (silly word) things I MAY have
said.
If Peter Stewart had any knowledge of the time period and millieu that
interests me (16th and 17th century English and North American
colonial), he would realize that I have posted some fairly interesting
clues and valuable observations over the years. As it is, he's so
ashamed (probably with good reason) of his recent, exalted British
ancestry (Dukes, Earls and such), that he affects to have no interest
in the time period and retreats to the Carolingian period (but has he
published anything even in _that_ area? I'm still unsure). But the
apple doesn't fall far from the tree--he still becomes 'livid with
rage,' pronounces people 'insolent' in the probable mode of some of his
quite recent female ancestors.

Put it to the vote and see if you can find any supporters for your
complaint.

Peter Stewart

[John Brandon]

Put it to the vote and see if you can find any supporters for your complaint

Hmmm, what complaint? I'm not following you.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by John Brandon

Put it to the vote and see if you can find any supporters for your complaint

Hmmm, what complaint? I'm not following you.

Golly, are you now aiming for a new low of obtuseness? You cut out your
whole complaining post that was copied above my comment.

Post by John Brandon
I don't believe I've ever said anything nearly as nasty as the blurb
above, whatever 'nasty' and 'vicious' (silly word) things I MAY have
said.

etc.

The difference of course is that your nastiness was, as usual, quite
gratuitous, and not in any way merited by its target.

You went on trying to justify your interests, absurdly claiming that I had
somehow "retreated" to the Carolingian period - as if this could have no
intrinsic value - apparently because I don't happen to admire your efforts
in another field of study or take any interest in my own ancestry. (How is
this supposed to be obligatory?)

You then implied that I might be lagging "even in _that_ area" if I had not
published about it, as if that must be the sole or supreme object of any
research. If so, it's notable that your interests co-incide neatly with a
great part of the contents of TAG: but are you a regular contributor to that
journal? Or is some pesky editor (or two, or three....) failing to
appreciate your talents?

Some of the reason your posts often appear so vapid & disconnected is your
failure to provide context, but surely you could at least try to keep this
in mind for your own reference.

Peter Stewart

[John Brandon]

How dumb. My previous post was not a complaint, merely a setting forth
of your flaws as I see them.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by John Brandon
How dumb. My previous post was not a complaint, merely a setting forth
of your flaws as I see them.

How exceedingly dumb to call another that while demonstating it yourself -
"complaint" MEANS a statement of dissatisfaction: that's PRECISELY what your
post was.

Peter Stewart

[John Brandon]

Your mama ....

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Nat was able to discuss Doug's predecessors in the field, resulting in
a more balanced review in which **RPA** [sic] is seen as being a step
forward compared to its predecessors, while still falling short of what
is expected in modern scholarly genealogy."

Stewart Baldwin
---------------------------

We need another puerile _OOPS!_ from Stewart Baldwin.

He is so abysmally ignorant of what he is writing about -- Douglas
Richardson's book and Nat Taylor's review -- that he cannot even get the
abbreviated TITLE of DR's book right.

The LONG TITLE is _Plantagenet Ancestry, A Study In Colonial And
Medieval Families_ -- no "R" -- just PA.

Baldwin must be doodling himself and thinking of another book -- RFC --
which has often been maligned here -- and for good cause.

When a writer makes a mistake that basic and egregious we can safely
just ignore anything else he may say as errant drivel.

Hilarious!

Let's face it -- both Taylor and Baldwin are unhappy with Richardson
because he is publishing genealogical books and making money and they
are not.

That's the bottom line.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Peter Stewart]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Nat was able to discuss Doug's predecessors in the field, resulting in
a more balanced review in which **RPA** [sic] is seen as being a step
forward compared to its predecessors, while still falling short of what
is expected in modern scholarly genealogy."
Stewart Baldwin
---------------------------
We need another puerile _OOPS!_ from Stewart Baldwin.
He is so abysmally ignorant of what he is writing about -- Douglas
Richardson's book and Nat Taylor's review -- that he cannot even get the
abbreviated TITLE of DR's book right.
The LONG TITLE is _Plantagenet Ancestry, A Study In Colonial And
Medieval Families_ -- no "R" -- just PA.

Goodness Hines is a shameless idioit - HE got the entire title wrong TWICE
and then refused to accept a straightforward correction, whereas Stewart
Baldwin used the abbreviation that RICHARDSON demanded for the work and yet
Hines purports to correct this....

Clearly the Hines pedigree traces to the same primate's backside as
Brandon's.

Peter Stewart

[R. Battle]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Nat was able to discuss Doug's predecessors in the field, resulting in
a more balanced review in which **RPA** [sic] is seen as being a step
forward compared to its predecessors, while still falling short of what
is expected in modern scholarly genealogy."
Stewart Baldwin
---------------------------
We need another puerile _OOPS!_ from Stewart Baldwin.
He is so abysmally ignorant of what he is writing about -- Douglas
Richardson's book and Nat Taylor's review -- that he cannot even get the
abbreviated TITLE of DR's book right.
The LONG TITLE is _Plantagenet Ancestry, A Study In Colonial And
Medieval Families_ -- no "R" -- just PA.
Baldwin must be doodling himself and thinking of another book -- RFC --
which has often been maligned here -- and for good cause.

You might want to check the newsgroup archives if you weren't around a
year ago, but that notation for Doug's book (short for "Richardson's
'Plantagenet Ancestry'") was started back then by Brice Clagett, probably
at least partially in response to Doug's request that his book not be
referred to as "PA3". Both abbreviations have been common currency in the
newsgroup ever since; the use of either hardly constitutes abysmal
ignorance (though not knowing that might).

<snip>

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Let's face it -- both Taylor and Baldwin are unhappy with Richardson
because he is publishing genealogical books and making money and they
are not.

<snip>

And this (entirely baseless, from my acquaintance with both parties)
assumption on your part means that nary a one of their observations should
be considered on its own merits? Isn't that classic ad-hominem illogic?

-Robert Battle

[D. Spencer Hines]

Douglas Richardson's first book is _Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study In
Colonial And Medieval Families_.

Only a certified imbecile would try to abbreviate that as "RPA".

A major problem here is that we have a number of fools -- including
Baldwin, Taylor, Stewart and perhaps Battle as well who are all envious
of Douglas Richardson, who has produced two marketable books on
Mediaeval Royal Genealogy, which are making some money for him and his
six children. -- while they have produced none.

These self-styled elitists -- having a silly-buggers, pseudo-academic,
socialistic bent themselves -- tend to look down from their Olympian
perches on all ventures capitalistic -- so they pooh-pooh Douglas
Richardson's work.

Gary Boyd Roberts, who is smarter than that bunch called out above, of
course -- he is a Yale graduate -- has praised PA and will probably
praise MCA as well.

Douglas Richardson and his Editor have done a superior piece of work on
both handsome books. The market, which represents the Genius of
Capitalism [thousands of people making individual decisions to vote with
their wallets and their purses] is approving ---- and buying the books.

Many of the naysayers, including some of the pogues noted above, don't
even seem to have perused and examined BOTH books.

Are there errors in PA and MCA? Of course there are. In books with
tens of thousands of facts -- including many dates and names in various
languages there are bound to be errors.

However, Douglas Richardson and his publisher, Genealogical Publishing
Company in Baltimore, Maryland, have established a website at
www.royalancestry.net where corrections are posted.

These are two serious, valuable, well-documented books on British Royal
And Noble Mediaeval Genealogy ---- that serious students of the subject
and talented amateurs will want to have in their libraries.

The silly-buggers carpers and envious academics -- pseudo and
otherwise -- will continue to gnash their teeth, wail, weep and throw
mud -- while Douglas Richardson will no doubt laugh all the way to the
Bank.

Deus Vult.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Peter Stewart]

Hines knows that he has posted rubbish, of course, but for the record some

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Douglas Richardson's first book is _Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study In
Colonial And Medieval Families_.
Only a certified imbecile would try to abbreviate that as "RPA".

The Richardson must be such an imbecile, as he asked for this to be the
usage on SGM.

Post by D. Spencer Hines
A major problem here is that we have a number of fools -- including
Baldwin, Taylor, Stewart and perhaps Battle as well who are all envious
of Douglas Richardson, who has produced two marketable books on
Mediaeval Royal Genealogy, which are making some money for him and his
six children. -- while they have produced none.

None of the people named has ever attempted to produce a book on medieval
genealogy for the sake of making money. Certainly I will never do this, as I
have not the least desire to participate in this market. Nor have I the
least interest in producing (or indeed reading) any such commodity tracing
medieval people to modern families and dedicated to maximum sales.

Post by D. Spencer Hines
These self-styled elitists -- having a silly-buggers, pseudo-academic,
socialistic bent themselves -- tend to look down from their Olympian
perches on all ventures capitalistic -- so they pooh-pooh Douglas
Richardson's work.

I have never styled myself an "elitist" and have no "solcialistic" bent
whatsoever. "Pseudo-academic" is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, but
I gathered that Hines has little respect for real academia, so I am puzzled
by his choice of term.

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Gary Boyd Roberts, who is smarter than that bunch called out above, of
course -- he is a Yale graduate -- has praised PA and will probably
praise MCA as well.

This man reportedly makes no bones about what he does, and this is not
scholarly genealogy. Once again, Hines shows a selective regard for academic
credentials.

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Douglas Richardson and his Editor have done a superior piece of work on
both handsome books. The market, which represents the Genius of
Capitalism [thousands of people making individual decisions to vote with
their wallets and their purses] is approving ---- and buying the books.

If you had read Nat Taylor's excellent review, you would understand that
author and editor have failed to meet modern scholarly standards in
citation, and have padded up the tome with superfluous references. Even the
two pillars of the secondary literature on King Henry II (Warren's biography
and Eyton's itinerary) are ignored, while a great many obsolete works are
included. And this to Hines is the mark of a "superior" piece of work
tracing descents from that monarch!

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Many of the naysayers, including some of the pogues noted above, don't
even seem to have perused and examined BOTH books.

What has perusing MCA to do with forming an opinon of PA3/RPA?

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Are there errors in PA and MCA? Of course there are. In books with
tens of thousands of facts -- including many dates and names in various
languages there are bound to be errors.

No-one has demanded perfection - all that is required of a conscientious
researcher is to aim for this, not necessarily to reach it.

Post by D. Spencer Hines
However, Douglas Richardson and his publisher, Genealogical Publishing
Company in Baltimore, Maryland, have established a website at
www.royalancestry.net where corrections are posted.

Corrections are also posted to SGM, and we see the author's attitude to
these all too clearly.

Post by D. Spencer Hines
These are two serious, valuable, well-documented books on British Royal
And Noble Mediaeval Genealogy ---- that serious students of the subject
and talented amateurs will want to have in their libraries.

No, PA3 and MCA are not "well-documented" - the methodology in this regard,
as proclaimed by the author himself and shown in extracts, is inadequate for
such a description.

Post by D. Spencer Hines
The silly-buggers carpers and envious academics -- pseudo and
otherwise -- will continue to gnash their teeth, wail, weep and throw
mud -- while Douglas Richardson will no doubt laugh all the way to the
Bank.

I don't know of anyone who begrudges Richardson his income - I certainly
don't. How many copies of his books he can sell to the gullible is not my
concern, but rather the truth and genuine efforts to get as close to this as
we can. Richardson contributes to this only very modestly, depite the
"triumphalism" of tone remarked by Nat in his review, and even at that only
when it comes easily since he has not prepared himself as a scholar to do
more.

Peter Stewart

[Hans Vogels]

DSH, you are an hypocrite and a moron. Go back in time and read the
rubbish and acid you piled yourself on DR. You are a person that can
not be taken seriously. I have been around since 2002 and all I see of
you is a windy weathervane with no principles. Even as an outsider it
agitates me to make the following remark.

One word would suffice as answer everytime you place a burp: moron. I
would seriously suggest anyone this approach for all further burps. No
discussions just a simple: MORON. See if you can cope with that.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Douglas Richardson's first book is _Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study In
Colonial And Medieval Families_.
Only a certified imbecile would try to abbreviate that as "RPA".
A major problem here is that we have a number of fools -- including
Baldwin, Taylor, Stewart and perhaps Battle as well who are all envious
of Douglas Richardson, who has produced two marketable books on
Mediaeval Royal Genealogy, which are making some money for him and his
six children. -- while they have produced none.
These self-styled elitists -- having a silly-buggers, pseudo-academic,
socialistic bent themselves -- tend to look down from their Olympian
perches on all ventures capitalistic -- so they pooh-pooh Douglas
Richardson's work.
Gary Boyd Roberts, who is smarter than that bunch called out above, of
course -- he is a Yale graduate -- has praised PA and will probably
praise MCA as well.
Douglas Richardson and his Editor have done a superior piece of work on
both handsome books. The market, which represents the Genius of
Capitalism [thousands of people making individual decisions to vote with
their wallets and their purses] is approving ---- and buying the books.
Many of the naysayers, including some of the pogues noted above, don't
even seem to have perused and examined BOTH books.
Are there errors in PA and MCA? Of course there are. In books with
tens of thousands of facts -- including many dates and names in various
languages there are bound to be errors.
However, Douglas Richardson and his publisher, Genealogical Publishing
Company in Baltimore, Maryland, have established a website at
www.royalancestry.net where corrections are posted.
These are two serious, valuable, well-documented books on British Royal
And Noble Mediaeval Genealogy ---- that serious students of the subject
and talented amateurs will want to have in their libraries.
The silly-buggers carpers and envious academics -- pseudo and
otherwise -- will continue to gnash their teeth, wail, weep and throw
mud -- while Douglas Richardson will no doubt laugh all the way to the
Bank.
Deus Vult.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor

[m***@yahoo.com]

Where was Mr David Greene, Nat Taylor, and Stewart Baldwin? Where were
these three? . They did nothing when Dr. David Kelly FASG a
distinguish genealogist was viciously attacked in recent times on this
same newsgroup. They said nothing in his defence. They ran for the tall
grasses they are nothing but cowards.

Mike Welch

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Where was Mr David Greene, Nat Taylor, and Stewart Baldwin? Where were
these three? . They did nothing when Dr. David Kelly FASG a
distinguish genealogist was viciously attacked in recent times on this
same newsgroup. They said nothing in his defence. They ran for the tall
grasses they are nothing but cowards.

And my local search engine says that this was your only contribution on

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Was just trying to say Thank You to the people who sent me the
information on this line one person told me that Doug name has been
removed from this line and Dr. Kelly is the only person who contributed
to this line.Brice told me that the line is still in the book. The line
in the book is 158A pages 152-154.

Did it defend Dr Kelly (I don't know as I am not sure what the book was
and am almost certain I don't have it anyway)?

[m***@yahoo.com]

Just like you to try and deflect the question I asked. It won't help
you.

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Where was Mr David Greene, Nat Taylor, and Stewart Baldwin? Where were
these three? . They did nothing when Dr. David Kelly FASG a
distinguish genealogist was viciously attacked in recent times on this
same newsgroup. They said nothing in his defence. They ran for the tall
grasses they are nothing but cowards.

You are assuming that a defence was available to be made - if so, why not
offer this yourself?

Peter Stewart

[m***@yahoo.com]

Nice try Peter my question still stands. If you feel a need to answer
for them please let me know. I have no issue with you speaking your
mind but yet at last there still isn't no answer from Mr.Greene, Nat
Taylor, or Mr Baldwin. Tell then I will ignore any question's from you
and Tim. Or should I start posting this to every newsgroup I can if you
like than we'll have everyone answering.

Mike Welch

[Peter Stewart]

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Nice try Peter my question still stands. If you feel a need to answer
for them please let me know. I have no issue with you speaking your
mind but yet at last there still isn't no answer from Mr.Greene, Nat
Taylor, or Mr Baldwin. Tell then I will ignore any question's from you
and Tim. Or should I start posting this to every newsgroup I can if you
like than we'll have everyone answering.

On the contrary, it's your avoidance of the issue that is plain to see
- why do you assume (a) that there is a cogent defence of Kelley to be
made and (b) that the others named by you must necessarily uphold this
anyway?

What is your evidence for suggesting that David Greene, Nat Taylor (who
has already expressed his reservations about my comments) and Stewart
Baldwin are failing to state a case that they consider valid?

You have accused these people of cowardice. Put up or withdraw, but
don't try to make a tawdry smoke-screen about my allegedly answering
for others: so far you have given nothing to answer except some
baseless insults that are open for anyone to counter.

Peter Stewart

[m***@yahoo.com]

No Peter,

I will not PUT UP OR WITHDRAW for you or anyone else. I think you got
this wrong Peter I never alleged you answered for them. You just gave
your opinion. Which you are entitled to and I gave mine which i'm
entitled too. So sorry I will not retract my comment's and will not
accommodate you with a answer.

Mike Welch

[Peter Stewart]

Post by m***@yahoo.com
No Peter,
I will not PUT UP OR WITHDRAW for you or anyone else. I think you
got this wrong Peter I never alleged you answered for them.

You wrote: "Nice try Peter my question still stands. If you feel a need
to answer for them please let me know."

On my planet that implies an allegation that I was trying to answer for
others.

Post by m***@yahoo.com
You just gave your opinion. Which you are entitled to and I gave mine which
i'm entitled too. So sorry I will not retract my comment's and will not
accommodate you with a answer.

I never said you were not entitled to express your opinion - but when
this involves accusing others of cowardice you ought to stand ready to
substantiate it. I have challenged you to do this, to accommodate not
myself but the entire readership before which you made the original
charge.

If it is indeed a baseless slur as I suggested, merely a projection of
your own partisan wishes that you will not elaborate with reasons, then
you may choose to go on indulging yourself in this way but you should
be aware that others will form or confirm opinions of your character,
and decency or lack of it, as a result.

Peter Stewart

[m***@yahoo.com]

Whatever you think Peter. I find it funny that there are two sets of
rules on this newsgroup. If you don't agree with someone than your post
are slur's.

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Whatever you think Peter. I find it funny that there are two sets of
rules on this newsgroup. If you don't agree with someone than your
post are slur's.

My insults are always substantial, and specifc to points made or
behaviours exhibited by the targets.

I never welch on a challenge to back up what I have said about anyone,
or to apologise if I have erred.

Calling others cowards because THEY have not made an illusory case that
YOU have not tried to put forward yourself, and that you can't even
outline, is appalling.

How can anyone possibly answer for your fevered imagination about what
they might have to say if they happened to agree with ideas that you
can't or won't even vaguely formulate?

This is not civil or uncivil discourse, but simply intellectual
hooliganism.

Peter Stewart

[Hans Vogels]

Mike,

Does the possibility occur to you that the said persons use SMG when
they choose to use. They seem to choose to contribute when a topic is
in their interest and not every now and then when somebody chooses to
drag their name in an discussion they do not find interesting. I
would.

I can very good imagine that they don't see SMG as a daily abstraction
or amusement. For me it is becoming more and more a daily form of
amusement. But then again I might get bored and choose to stay away
for days or weeks. Get the point?

And by the way I'm nobody's sockpuppet or fool. I'm my own master.

Hans Vogels

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Nice try Peter my question still stands. If you feel a need to answer
for them please let me know. I have no issue with you speaking your
mind but yet at last there still isn't no answer from Mr.Greene, Nat
Taylor, or Mr Baldwin. Tell then I will ignore any question's from you
and Tim. Or should I start posting this to every newsgroup I can if you
like than we'll have everyone answering.
Mike Welch

[John Brandon]

"Nat was able to discuss Doug's predecessors in the field, resulting in a more balanced review in which RPA is seen as being a step forward compared to its predecessors, while still falling short of what is expected in modern scholarly genealogy."

As Doug's book is clearly a revision/ updating of Faris's, how can it
"fall short of what is expected in modern scholarly genealogy" (i.e.,
nobody ever said anything remotely similar about Faris)?

It seems different standards are slyly being invoked to allow
"reservations" about Douglas' book. I suppose it was thought smart to
have Nat carry on about substandard citations and bibliography as he's
a professor (and might lecture his students on that topic). But it
isn't practical in presenting this amount of information to have every
statement footnoted (unless Douglas is now supposed to re-format
everything to produce a three- or four-volume, CP-style set!).

[Peter Stewart]

Post by John Brandon

"Nat was able to discuss Doug's predecessors in the field, resulting in a
more balanced review in which RPA is seen as being a step forward
compared to its predecessors, while still falling short of what is
expected in modern scholarly genealogy."

As Doug's book is clearly a revision/ updating of Faris's, how can it
"fall short of what is expected in modern scholarly genealogy" (i.e.,
nobody ever said anything remotely similar about Faris)?
It seems different standards are slyly being invoked to allow
"reservations" about Douglas' book. I suppose it was thought smart to
have Nat carry on about substandard citations and bibliography as he's
a professor (and might lecture his students on that topic). But it
isn't practical in presenting this amount of information to have every
statement footnoted (unless Douglas is now supposed to re-format
everything to produce a three- or four-volume, CP-style set!).

Have you even read Nat's review? The point at issue here is covered far more
comprehensively than your peevish pleading against it: the many worthless
citations (some quite irrelevant, some to obsolete or otherwise approximate
references) given in the book waste a lot of print space (and research time
for that matter) that should have been put to better use. The task can be
done more efficiently, more accurately, by observing scholarly norms rather
than trying to pile up a sham authority through ignorance of conventional
method in selecting and presenting proofs, at first or - if already on the
published record - at second hand.

Richardson doesn't practice his craft well enough to cite the sources
directly and the secondary literature judiciously, or to apply and credit
the findings of others appropriately. In other words, he fails in the basis
of scholarship. (Unlike me, Nat is far too generous to state this.)

And RICHARDSON has claimed for himself a significant advance over the aims
and results of Faris, who is not named as co-author - if it should be
assessed only by the same standards as its predecessors, why would there be
a market for the new book in the first place? Just because it is bigger, not
better?

Nat reviews the work in a survey of the tradition that it belongs to, and
that its author aspires to honour by improving. He is given all the credit
due to him for a partial success in this endeavour. The trouble is that some
demand unstinting praise where this is not deserved.

Peter Stewart

[John Brandon]

... if it should be assessed only by the same standards as its predecessors, why would there be a market for the new book in the first place? Just because it is bigger, not better?

Because the Faris edition is out of print, for one thing.

I do not find a significant difference between the citations of Faris
and of Douglas Richardson. In that case, simple consistency requires
us to find the Faris citations lacking as well.

Faris is extravagantly praised or over-praised in Nat's review:
"Douglas Richardson is standing on the shoulders of giants in his
endeavor." I find the tone of this smug and revolting. Faris was a
perfectly adequate compiler of the research of others, but never did
any original work of his own (that I am aware of).

Nat reviews the work in a survey of the tradition that it belongs to, and that its author aspires to honour by improving. He [Richardson] is given all the credit due to him for a partial success in this endeavour.

What an odd change of tune from you--actually admitting that Doug's
book has some merit) ...!

[Peter Stewart]

As usual Brandon has cut away the substantial points that he can't or won't

Post by John Brandon

... if it should be assessed only by the same standards as its
predecessors, why would there be a market for the new book in the first
place? Just because it is bigger, not better?

Because the Faris edition is out of print, for one thing.

It is nevertheless on the record, and if adequate in Richardson's own view
would surely have been worthy to cite alone for each and every point in it
that he did not wish to dispute of augment.

Post by John Brandon
I do not find a significant difference between the citations of Faris
and of Douglas Richardson. In that case, simple consistency requires
us to find the Faris citations lacking as well.

And so we all do for current use, including Richardson who set about
imrpoving on Faris...

Post by John Brandon
"Douglas Richardson is standing on the shoulders of giants in his
endeavor." I find the tone of this smug and revolting. Faris was a
perfectly adequate compiler of the research of others, but never did
any original work of his own (that I am aware of).

Faris didn't have Faris as a starting point. Richardson is hoisted up be the
previous standard. This is so simple, it is invidious to have to elaborate
such points to adults.

Post by John Brandon

Nat reviews the work in a survey of the tradition that it belongs to, and
that its author aspires to honour by improving. He [Richardson] is given
all the credit due to him for a partial success in this endeavour.

What an odd change of tune from you--actually admitting that Doug's
book has some merit) ...!

No, this is NOT a change of tune from me - look in the archive if you want
to inform yourself, but don't post blantant falsehoods from your inaccurate
impressions unless you wish to be seen for an even greater fool than
necessary.

Peter Stewart

[Vickie Elam White]

John,

Actually, the method of documentation, which is a huge
part of Nat's (and others') problem with the book, was
criticized in previous editions, too. Search the archives
and you'll see.


Vickie Elam White

Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Nat was able to discuss Doug's predecessors in the field,

resulting in a more balanced review in which RPA is seen as being
a step forward compared to its predecessors, while still falling
short of what is expected in modern scholarly genealogy."

As Doug's book is clearly a revision/ updating of Faris's, how
can it
"fall short of what is expected in modern scholarly genealogy"
(i.e.,
nobody ever said anything remotely similar about Faris)?

It seems different standards are slyly being invoked to allow
"reservations" about Douglas' book. I suppose it was thought
smart to
have Nat carry on about substandard citations and bibliography as
he's
a professor (and might lecture his students on that topic). But
it
isn't practical in presenting this amount of information to have
every
statement footnoted (unless Douglas is now supposed to re-format
everything to produce a three- or four-volume, CP-style set!).

[John Brandon]

Actually, the method of documentation, which is a huge part of Nat's (and others') problem with the book, was criticized in previous editions, too. Search the archives

and you'll see.

Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Folks must really want a CP-style set of
volumes, then (it would take at least two volumes to do it properly).
Or maybe we can get TAG and the NEHGR to agree to a reprint of all
their royal-descent articles in a single volume (grouped together by
immigrant or 'immigrant cluster', elegant typeface, superior book
production). I'd actually buy it!

[Vickie Elam White]

John,

Yes, the CP-style would be great. Anything worth
doing...

Now, can we have a bit less frothing at the keyboard?

Vickie Elam White

Actually, the method of documentation, which is a huge part of

Nat's (and others') problem with the book, was criticized in
previous editions, too. Search the archives
and you'll see.

Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Folks must really want a CP-style
set of
volumes, then (it would take at least two volumes to do it
properly).
Or maybe we can get TAG and the NEHGR to agree to a reprint of
all
their royal-descent articles in a single volume (grouped together
by
immigrant or 'immigrant cluster', elegant typeface, superior book
production). I'd actually buy it!

[John Brandon]

It was frothing at the mouth, not the keyboard .... ^_\^

[Vickie Elam White]

John,

Well, stop that. You're getting the keyboard
all wet. <G>

Vickie Elam White

"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It was frothing at the mouth, not the keyboard .... ^_\^

[John Brandon]

Can't help myself! It is so much fun twitting Peter ...

[D. Spencer Hines]

Nope.

Nat Taylor is not even a professor.

He's merely a lecturer.

DSH

"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| >>"Nat was able to discuss Doug's predecessors in the field, resulting
in a more balanced review in which RPA is seen as being a step forward
compared to its predecessors, while still falling short of what is
expected in modern scholarly genealogy."
|
| As Doug's book is clearly a revision/ updating of Faris's, how can it
| "fall short of what is expected in modern scholarly genealogy" (i.e.,
| nobody ever said anything remotely similar about Faris)?
|
| It seems different standards are slyly being invoked to allow
| "reservations" about Douglas' book. I suppose it was thought smart to
| have Nat carry on about substandard citations and bibliography as he's
| a professor (and might lecture his students on that topic). But it
| isn't practical in presenting this amount of information to have every
| statement footnoted (unless Douglas is now supposed to re-format
| everything to produce a three- or four-volume, CP-style set!).

[John Brandon]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Nat Taylor is not even a professor.

True ... but to give him the benefit of the doubt ,,,

[D. Spencer Hines]

He doesn't deserve it.

TEN YEARS out of grad school and he's still a LECTURER?

Harvard undergrad, circa, 1990, Harvard Ph.D. History 1995 -- yet he's
still a LECTURER today?

Not even an Assistant Professor!

Appalling!

Maybe he drinks.

DSH

"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

| >>Nat Taylor is not even a professor.
|
| True ... but to give him the benefit of the doubt ,,,

[Peter Stewart]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
He doesn't deserve it.
TEN YEARS out of grad school and he's still a LECTURER?
Harvard undergrad, circa, 1990, Harvard Ph.D. History 1995 -- yet he's
still a LECTURER today?
Not even an Assistant Professor!
Appalling!

Hans was right, of course - Hines is a moron. Like an ailing puff-adder that
strikes out at his own tail, and even his venom is degraded.

Einstein took nine years from graduation to obtain any academic post, eleven
to win a professorship: what a dismal nobody he turned out to be....

Samuel Johnson didn't get anywhere in academia, not even graduating from
Oxford due to unfortunate circumstances: what a failure he must have
been....

And Hines, in his black corner of professional non-achievement, ten years
after his college days was no doubt over the threshhold of a brilliant
career in....threshholds! Yes indeed, the great Admiral D. Spencer
Hornblower transcended his humble originas and rose above his peers to
become a jumped-up quartermaster in the US Navy....

Everybody has different ambitions, commitments, priorities, opportunities;
and there is no set standard either of track or progress in any sphere that
can determine the success or failure of a person merely by status at an
arbitrary point.

Not least when viewed by others who were notably mediocre in their own
careers, chosen or otherwise, and who are yet dumb enough to think they have
an edge in personal scorn.

Peter Stewart

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 5 Jul, "John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

< Someone else presumably, but we don't know whom or when wrote: >

Post by John Brandon

Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Nat was able to discuss Doug's predecessors in the field,
resulting in a more balanced review in which RPA is seen as being a
step forward compared to its predecessors, while still falling
short of what is expected in modern scholarly genealogy."

As Doug's book is clearly a revision/ updating of Faris's, how can it
"fall short of what is expected in modern scholarly genealogy" (i.e.,
nobody ever said anything remotely similar about Faris)?
It seems different standards are slyly being invoked to allow
"reservations" about Douglas' book. I suppose it was thought smart to
have Nat carry on about substandard citations and bibliography as he's
a professor (and might lecture his students on that topic). But it
isn't practical in presenting this amount of information to have every
statement footnoted (unless Douglas is now supposed to re-format
everything to produce a three- or four-volume, CP-style set!).

Delighted to see a serious set of statements that we can now discuss.

The problem with the existing sets of references in PA3 is that there
are many of them, of unknown standard and it is not known which, if any,
refer to particular facts, particularly the contentious ones. Above is
the statement that

"it isn't practical in presenting this amount of information to have
every statement footnoted (unless Douglas is now supposed to re-format
everything to produce a three- or four-volume, CP-style set!)"

My hobby is that of finding practical ways of simplifying things. So
let's consider what can be done:

1. Have a separate index of abbreviations for the works being cited.
Thus "E Bridges Collins' Peerage of England" becomes, say, "Col
Per". This would immediately cut down the length of the citations
by about 60%.

2. Concentrate on the citations that are to primary material. Get rid
of all secondary citations. This would remove perhaps half (more?)
of the citations remaining. So we are down to a sixth of the length
of the current citations.

3. Then footnote the remaining citations to the various facts. They do
not have to be listed each on a separate line as in CP. The style
of The Scots Peerage can be preferred where the footnotes are run
successively on the lines and really do not take up much of the page.

Personally I would like to see included in any bibliography (at the end,
as now) a general comment on the merit of each work used as a reference.

I think that such a practice would work and be eminently practical.
Further it would then raise the volume from an amorphous mass of
unsubstantiated statements to an obvious work of scholarship that is
easily checked and has a degree of reliability.

Can you now say what is not practical about it?

[John Brandon]

Sure, that sounds possible. Now: who are we going to find to do it??

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yep....

And what is the MARKET for it?

Is GPC interested in PUBLISHING it?

DSH

"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| Sure, that sounds possible. Now: who are we going to find to do it??

[John Brandon]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Is GPC interested in PUBLISHING it?

Probably not, at least "at this time." Maybe in ten years Nathaniel
will have all the citations done up to a fair-thee-well.

[D. Spencer Hines]

I suspect Nat Taylor, Lecturer, would RAPIDLY lose interest in the
"scholarly citations" for PA and MCA if he had to do them HIMSELF.

It's FAR easier for him to sit back -- as do Stewart, Greene, Baldwin,
Farmerie, Smith, Vogels [the Bird Man] and a host of others and just
throw stones at Richardson.

Great Fun for them and no work....

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

| >>Is GPC interested in PUBLISHING it?
|
| Probably not, at least "at this time." Maybe in ten years Nathaniel
| will have all the citations done up to a fair-thee-well. [sic]

[D. Spencer Hines]

Do add Pogues Battle and Powys-Lybbe to the list of malefactors and
miscreants below.

Both also like to whine, thumb-suck and opine about "What Richardson
Should Have Done With The Citations".

DSH
-----------------------

I suspect Nat Taylor, Lecturer, would RAPIDLY lose interest in the
"scholarly citations" for PA and MCA if he had to do them HIMSELF.

It's FAR easier for him to sit back -- as do Stewart, Greene, Baldwin,
Farmerie, Smith, Vogels [the Bird Man] and a host of others and just
throw stones at Richardson.

Great Fun for them and no work....

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

| >>Is GPC interested in PUBLISHING it?
|
| Probably not, at least "at this time." Maybe in ten years Nathaniel
| will have all the citations done up to a fair-thee-well. [sic]

[Peter Stewart]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Do add Pogues Battle and Powys-Lybbe to the list of malefactors and
miscreants below.
Both also like to whine, thumb-suck and opine about "What Richardson
Should Have Done With The Citations".
DSH
-----------------------
I suspect Nat Taylor, Lecturer, would RAPIDLY lose interest in the
"scholarly citations" for PA and MCA if he had to do them HIMSELF.
It's FAR easier for him to sit back -- as do Stewart, Greene, Baldwin,
Farmerie, Smith, Vogels [the Bird Man] and a host of others and just
throw stones at Richardson.
Great Fun for them and no work....

Why not propose a single good reason why Richardson should NOT have done
better, by following scholarly convention, in this matter?

You are avoiding the point that sensible, accurately-targeted citation would
have taken LESS space, LESS time and LESS trouble than his chosen method of
massing ill- or un-distinguished references that when tested individually
have been shown to yield VERY little to any real purpose.

All that has been achieved by this is a pretentiously - indeed
fraudulently - oversized book.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

[Spencer Hines wrote: >>Is GPC interested in PUBLISHING it?]

Post by John Brandon
Probably not, at least "at this time." Maybe in ten years
Nathaniel will have all the citations done up to a fair-thee-well.

A "fare-thee-well", I assume, unless the chump who wrote "Your mama..."
(?) has some different meaning in what he is pleased to call his mind.

If PA3 finds a market, why on earth would its publisher not want a
shorter & better revision to sell once the first print run is gone?

The point is that Richardson, unless he is an outright cheat like
Roderick Stuart, must have looked into each of the references he gave.
Unless he is an abysmal fool, he will have kept voluminous notes
telling him what each reference contained. Therefore it shouldn't be
too hard a chore for him and his editor to reformat the book taking out
superfluous references and concentrating instead on direct proofs and
the immediate historiography.

Peter Stewart

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by John Brandon
Sure, that sounds possible. Now: who are we going to find to do it??

I presume this one-liner was in reply to my suggestions on a method for
providing short and manageable and precise references?

If so, sounds like we have some progress towards something that we would
have liked to have seen as a methodology.

And the answer to the question of who is to operate some such
methodology requires (a) the licence from the author to revise his work
and (b) access to the relevant documents. To me the author sounds by
far the best to do that in, shall we call it, "PA4".

[Peter Stewart]

Post by John Brandon
Sure, that sounds possible. Now: who are we going to find to do it??

How about the editor, Kimball G. Everingham? If he can't organise a
table of abbreviations and format the briefer citations into coherent
footnotes, I would be curious to know what else he is good for.

The problem is that author and editor apparently had a different
agenda, which was rather to maximise the impressiveness of their book
to the uninitiated, by means of stupefying lists of references
irresponsibly separated from the points at issue. Doubly separated, in
fact, since there is no direct linkage in the first place and then the
citations are often merely gleanings from antiquarian tomes consulted
without method rather than efficient references to the first and/or
best presentation of evidence on any point.

PA3 could have been half the size and double the quality if Richardson
- even with his meagre aptitude and skills - had simply gone about his
work more sensibly, less self-importantly.

It's fascinating that a number of puff pieces about the book posted
here have caused barely a ripple, while the first subtantial review of
the work has unleashed torrents of inanity.

Since the matter has several people so highly exercised, will anyone
try to address the criticisms head-on for a change on instead of merely
griping about them and, especially, about the critics?

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

Pogue Stewart is twaddling again....

Now that the book is out we know it is NOT a Third Edition.

Stewart apparently has not even SEEN Douglas Richardson's book ---- else
he could not make such a fundamentally stupid and careless error as
referring to it as a Third Edition.

But that hasn't stopped Pogue Stewart from prattling, posing, prancing
and pontificating about a book he has never seen.

Par For The Course With Pogue Stewart.

Hilarious!

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

| PA3 could have been half the size and double the quality if
| Richardson...

[Peter Stewart]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Pogue Stewart is twaddling again....
Now that the book is out we know it is NOT a Third Edition.
Stewart apparently has not even SEEN Douglas Richardson's book ---- else
he could not make such a fundamentally stupid and careless error as
referring to it as a Third Edition.
But that hasn't stopped Pogue Stewart from prattling, posing, prancing
and pontificating about a book he has never seen.
Par For The Course With Pogue Stewart.

Rubbish, Hines, as you are well aware - of course it's a thrid edition,
drawing heavily on PA2. The fact that Richardson seeks to obfuscate his debt
to Faris does NOT bind me (or you) to collude with him on this.

Read Nat's review setting PA3 into the tradition that Richardson has
acquisitively battened onto. If the latter had followed this dutifully,
Faris would have been on the title page as co-author.

Peter Stewart

[John Brandon]

Read Nat's review setting PA3 into the tradition that Richardson has acquisitively battened onto. If the latter had followed this dutifully, Faris would have been on the title page as co-author.

That is your opinion. Just because Shepard did this it doesn't follow
that Doug Richardson MUST.

A "fare-thee-well", I assume, unless the chump who wrote "Your mama..." (?) has some different meaning in what he is pleased to call his mind.

Oops, yes, "fare-thee-well" etc. But "chump"? Your American slang is
very dated. Probably doesn't sound right anyway, coming out of your
prim, aristocratic lips ...

[Peter Stewart]

Post by John Brandon

Post by Peter Stewart
Read Nat's review setting PA3 into the tradition that Richardson has
acquisitively battened onto. If the latter had followed this dutifully,
Faris would have been on the title page as co-author.

That is your opinion. Just because Shepard did this it doesn't follow
that Doug Richardson MUST.

No, what you are misunderstanding is NOT my opinion: I didn't say that
Richardson SHOULD have followed this particular precedent or that Faris
SHOULD be on the title page, but only that if Richardson HAD observed the
tradition (the tenor of which is a fact, not an opinon) Faris WOULD have
been there.

You really ought to educate yourself in basic comprehension, and then you
might learn to analyse evidence accurately for genealogy as for daily life.

Post by John Brandon

Post by Peter Stewart
A "fare-thee-well", I assume, unless the chump who wrote "Your mama..."
(?) has some different meaning in what he is pleased to call his mind.

Oops, yes, "fare-thee-well" etc. But "chump"? Your American slang is
very dated. Probably doesn't sound right anyway, coming out of your
prim, aristocratic lips ...

How egocentric can you be? I'm NOT an American, nor is the word "chump"
(it's a British colloquialism for a stupid person); and slang doesn't date
everywhere for everyone according to usage amongst your cronies in the US.

And I've never represented myself as an aristocrat. You really would do well
to stop fantasising about me and my ancestry - I never do.

Peter Stewart

[John Brandon]

but only that if Richardson HAD observed the tradition (the tenor of which is a fact, not an opinon) Faris WOULD have been there.

Fortunately some people are able to get beyond "standing on tradition."
How about you give it a try, Peter? Come on--it would make life so
much easier for you.

You really would do well to stop fantasising about me and my ancestry - I never do.

I guess you're on the right track there. It wouldn't get you very far
in Australia.

[Peter Stewart]

I don't have a clue what you mean in either part of this post.

Peter Stewart

Post by John Brandon

but only that if Richardson HAD observed the tradition (the tenor of
which is a fact, not an opinon) Faris WOULD have been there.

Fortunately some people are able to get beyond "standing on tradition."
How about you give it a try, Peter? Come on--it would make life so
much easier for you.

You really would do well to stop fantasising about me and my ancestry - I never do.

I guess you're on the right track there. It wouldn't get you very far
in Australia.

[John Brandon]

Playing dumb? Poor thing ...

[John Brandon]

PA3 could have been half the size and double the quality if Richardson - even with his meagre aptitude and skills - had simply gone about his work more sensibly, less self-importantly.

We're still waiting for your first "work," aren't we?

If you have published anything (genealogical) that is likely to be
available to us, it would be nice if you'd post the reference so we can
inspect it. That is only fair.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by John Brandon

PA3 could have been half the size and double the quality if Richardson -
even with his meagre aptitude and skills - had simply gone about his work
more sensibly, less self-importantly.

We're still waiting for your first "work," aren't we?
If you have published anything (genealogical) that is likely to be
available to us, it would be nice if you'd post the reference so we can
inspect it. That is only fair.

You will have to wait a good deal longer - I have recently described the
work I have been doing for years, and it will be years more before this is
finished. Then it will be freely available to all. Meanwhile only a few SGM
participants have seen any of it, and you are not about to be another one of
them.

It is not worthwhile to release this kind of huge, intergral undertaking
piecemeal, any more than Richardson would have published his book in
fascicules.

However, I have made as many detailed posts over the past several years as
anyone else, and these are readily available in the archive to be assessed.

Peter Stewart

[John Brandon]

Post by Peter Stewart
However, I have made as many detailed posts over the past several years as

anyone else, and these are readily available in the archive to be
assessed.

I think it's not wise to set much store by what you read on the
Internet.

All I can say is "Promises, promises ..." I hope it eventually
materializes.

[R. Battle]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

<snip>

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
2. Concentrate on the citations that are to primary material. Get rid
of all secondary citations. This would remove perhaps half (more?)
of the citations remaining. So we are down to a sixth of the length
of the current citations.

<snip>

I'm not sure that this idea would be a good one. Unless the
line/generation in question is in "Plantagenet Ancestry" (or any other
work, for that matter) as the product of research in the original records
by the author/compiler, it would be more efficient and more scholastically
honest to *solely* put a citation to the original secondary source that
adduced the information from primary material. The only exception to
this that I could see would be to cite primary documents that supplement
those cited in the original secondary work (i.e., that are not themselves
cited in that work and that contribute materially to its conclusions).

-Robert Battle

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
2. Concentrate on the citations that are to primary material. Get
rid of all secondary citations. This would remove perhaps half
(more?) of the citations remaining. So we are down to a sixth of
the length of the current citations.

<snip>
I'm not sure that this idea would be a good one. Unless the
line/generation in question is in "Plantagenet Ancestry" (or any other
work, for that matter) as the product of research in the original
records by the author/compiler, it would be more efficient and more
scholastically honest to *solely* put a citation to the original
secondary source that adduced the information from primary material.

Agreed. The problem here is what is a primary source: is it the
original document? Is it a photocopy of the document? Is it a
transcript of the document? Is is a translation of the document? Is
it an abstract of the document? Or even is it a document that contains
the facts and precisely cites a primary document as its source?

I was consciously not specific about what a primary source was. It
raises a whole methodological minefield in itself.

And then what is a secondary document? Are some of the above list,
even, secondary documents? Or are the Burke volumes (with no source
references at all) secondary documents? Another minefield.

Post by Peter Stewart
The only exception to this that I could see would be to cite primary
documents that supplement those cited in the original secondary work
(i.e., that are not themselves cited in that work and that
contribute materially to its conclusions).

Perhaps the critical thing for a professional work would be to make it
easy to find the relevant primary source for each fact. Perhaps this
might be two stage process, the first leading to a book of reputable,
and documented, facts and the second process going from the second book
to something pretty close to the primary document.

That is why I said that it is worthwhile include some appraisal of the
cited sources with the bibliography.

But if each fact is not, somehow, separately documented in some
manner to primary sources then verification is virtually impossible and
credibility is diminished.


PS Delighted to see someone who can quote and attirbute what he is
replying to, no to mention also snipping the matters that are not
under the rpesent discussion. Thanks.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
2. Concentrate on the citations that are to primary material. Get rid
of all secondary citations. This would remove perhaps half (more?)
of the citations remaining. So we are down to a sixth of the length
of the current citations.

<snip>
I'm not sure that this idea would be a good one. Unless the
line/generation in question is in "Plantagenet Ancestry" (or any other
work, for that matter) as the product of research in the original records
by the author/compiler, it would be more efficient and more scholastically
honest to *solely* put a citation to the original secondary source that
adduced the information from primary material. The only exception to this
that I could see would be to cite primary documents that supplement those
cited in the original secondary work (i.e., that are not themselves cited
in that work and that contribute materially to its conclusions).

Certainly it would be retrograde to cut out all secondary references - the
convention in these matters, flouted by Richardson from a mixture of
incompetence, arrogance and phoniness, is to cite the primary evidence alone
where this is adduced for new information or analysis, and to cite the
relevant secondary literature where points of interest have already been
established in this way by predecessors (normally for the first time,
otherwise in the most comprehensive manner), or where some controversy
amongst them needs to be discussed.

In order to do this properly, efficiently and honestly, a researcher must
know what the primary sources actually say and mean (NOT just word-spotting
the obvious, without for instance realising how many people are involved in
a phrase like "dominus...Willelmo"), and must also have read and considered
the existing secondary literature in relation to the former.

Richardson has NOT achieved this with anything like consistency, and indeed
doesn't try.

Peter Stewart

[Stewart Baldwin]

On 5 Jul 2005 06:36:12 -0700, "John Brandon" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[Stewart Baldwin wrote:]

Post by John Brandon

Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Nat was able to discuss Doug's predecessors in the field,
resulting in a more balanced review in which RPA is seen
as being a step forward compared to its predecessors, while
still falling short of what is expected in modern scholarly
genealogy."

[The above unattributed quote was taken from one of my own postings,
but with the words "Given more space, ..." cut from the beginning of
the sentence.]

Post by John Brandon
As Doug's book is clearly a revision/ updating of Faris's, how can it
"fall short of what is expected in modern scholarly genealogy" (i.e.,
nobody ever said anything remotely similar about Faris)?

See below

Post by John Brandon
It seems different standards are slyly being invoked to allow
"reservations" about Douglas' book. I suppose it was thought smart to
have Nat carry on about substandard citations and bibliography as he's
a professor (and might lecture his students on that topic).

...

"... it was thought smart to have Nat ..."?????????

And where did this totally outrageous statement come from? On what
basis do you insinuate that the review was anything other than the
honest opinion of the writer of that review? On what basis do you
insinuate that unnamed outside forces told Nat what to say in the
review?

This completely despicable insinuation demands an apology.

Post by John Brandon
... But it
isn't practical in presenting this amount of information to have every
statement footnoted (unless Douglas is now supposed to re-format
everything to produce a three- or four-volume, CP-style set!).

What about the author's own rather grandiose claims regarding what the
book was going to be? Shouldn't the author's own claims about the
book be measured against the actual results?

Stewart Baldwin

[D. Spencer Hines]

What PRECISELY is it that Nat Taylor doesn't like about Douglas
Richardson's references, citations and bibliography in _Magna Carta
Ancestry_.?

DSH

[D. Spencer Hines]

Recte:

What PRECISELY is it that Nat Taylor doesn't like about Douglas
Richardson's references, citations and bibliography in _Magna Carta
Ancestry_?

DSH

[Peter Stewart]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
What PRECISELY is it that Nat Taylor doesn't like about Douglas
Richardson's references, citations and bibliography in _Magna Carta
Ancestry_?

Try yet again, Spencer - Nat did not review _Magna Carta Ancestry_, but
rather _Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families_.

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hilarious!

Peter Stewart is still demonstrating his severe brain damage. He is
very slow to get the drift.

Nat Taylor has no doubt seen BOTH _Plantagenet Ancestry_ and _Magna
Carta Ancestry_ by now -- surely Harvard's Great Library System will
have a copy of both books. Nat should check at Widener.

So Nat can tell us _tout de suite_ what his heartburn is with Douglas
Richardson's references, citations and bibliography in EACH book.

Not some snide, damning with faint praise, Harvard Magisterial
Dismissive folderol -- just a straightforward analysis of what he finds
to be "not in accordance with modern scholarly standards" -- in each
book -- that's what we need from him. There are differences.

Further, Nat is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. He doesn't
need some Svengali puppet master with his hand up Nat's bum manipulating
his mouth in order to express his opinions on SGM/GEN-MEDIEVAL.

Deus Vult.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Doug McDonald]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Hilarious!
Peter Stewart is still demonstrating his severe brain damage. He is
very slow to get the drift.
Nat Taylor has no doubt seen BOTH _Plantagenet Ancestry_ and _Magna
Carta Ancestry_ by now -- surely Harvard's Great Library System will
have a copy of both books.

Not likely!! Universities are highly unlikely to have such a book.

A check of WorldCat shows only one having Plantagenet Ancestry,
and of all the universities in the world, it turns out to be one of the
top two to expect to have it: Brigham Young!

Doug McDonald

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hilarious!

Peter Stewart is still demonstrating his severe brain damage. He is
very slow to get the drift.

Nat Taylor has no doubt seen BOTH _Plantagenet Ancestry_ and _Magna
Carta Ancestry_ by now -- surely Harvard's Great Library System will
have a copy of both books. Nat should check at Widener. If they don't
have them surely he can easily find a copy of each in Boston.

So Nat can tell us _tout de suite_ what his heartburn is with Douglas
Richardson's references, citations and bibliography in EACH book.

Not some snide, damning with faint praise, Harvard Magisterial
Dismissive folderol -- just a straightforward analysis of what he finds
to be "not in accordance with modern scholarly standards" -- in each
book -- that's what we need from him. There are differences.

Further, Nat is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. He doesn't
need some Svengali puppet master with his hand up Nat's bum manipulating
his mouth in order to express his opinions on SGM/GEN-MEDIEVAL.

Hell, if Nat had some balls and brains of his own he'd undoubtedly be a
Full Professor by now and not merely a lowly Lecturer.

Deus Vult.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Peter Stewart]

Yet again Hines yells, hools and drivels about someone else while
unmistakably demonstrating that he can't get the most basic facts straight
in his noggin.

I have not spoken for Nat Taylor in any way, and I correctly pointed out
that Nat's review - which has so far been the subject of Spencer's latest
bout of sycophancy towards his erstwhile butt of savagery, Douglas
Richardson - was of _Plantagenet Ancestry. There is no "drift" to be got
about _Magna Carta Ancestry_ in this regard, and Nat does not owe anyone a
free review of a different work just to cover another mindless error on the
part of Hines.

Hines evidently thinks that any title associated with Richardson must be
equally and identically deficient. On that he may be right.

However, we have no reason to suppose that Nat has seen _Magna Carta
Ancestry_ to form an opinion of it, and as has been pointed out there is no
evidence that a copy is available to him through the Harvard library system.
Hines is not strong on the analysis of evidence, of course, as witness his
persistent folly about the state of my brain. It works quite well enough to
see him for a fool, and a base one at that.

Peter Stewart

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Hilarious!
Peter Stewart is still demonstrating his severe brain damage. He is
very slow to get the drift.
Nat Taylor has no doubt seen BOTH _Plantagenet Ancestry_ and _Magna
Carta Ancestry_ by now -- surely Harvard's Great Library System will
have a copy of both books. Nat should check at Widener. If they don't
have them surely he can easily find a copy of each in Boston.
So Nat can tell us _tout de suite_ what his heartburn is with Douglas
Richardson's references, citations and bibliography in EACH book.
Not some snide, damning with faint praise, Harvard Magisterial
Dismissive folderol -- just a straightforward analysis of what he finds
to be "not in accordance with modern scholarly standards" -- in each
book -- that's what we need from him. There are differences.
Further, Nat is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. He doesn't
need some Svengali puppet master with his hand up Nat's bum manipulating
his mouth in order to express his opinions on SGM/GEN-MEDIEVAL.
Hell, if Nat had some balls and brains of his own he'd undoubtedly be a
Full Professor by now and not merely a lowly Lecturer.
Deus Vult.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Nat was able to discuss Doug's predecessors in the field, resulting in
a more balanced review in which **RPA** [sic] is seen as being a step
forward compared to its predecessors, while still falling short of what
is expected in modern scholarly genealogy."

Stewart Baldwin
---------------------------

We need another puerile _OOPS!_ from Stewart Baldwin.

He is so abysmally ignorant of what he is writing about -- Douglas
Richardson's book and Nat Taylor's review -- that he cannot even get the
abbreviated TITLE of DR's book right.

The LONG TITLE is _Plantagenet Ancestry, A Study In Colonial And
Medieval Families_ -- no "R" -- just PA.

Baldwin must be doodling himself and thinking of another book -- RFC --
which has often been maligned here -- and for good cause.

When a writer makes a mistake that basic and egregious we can safely
just ignore anything else he may say as errant drivel.

Hilarious!

Let's face it -- both Taylor and Baldwin are unhappy with Richardson
because he is publishing genealogical books and making money and they
are not.

That's the bottom line.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[D. Spencer Hines]

Douglas Richardson's Editor for both PA and MCA is a man named:

Kimball G. Everingham....

He must be a very intelligent and capable man.

Who can tell us about him -- his background, personal and academic --
other things he's done -- and so forth?

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hilarious!

Vivien, it just doesn't get any better than this!

Peter 'Pogue' Stewart is showing off his damaged brain again --
anserinely flaunting it from the proscenium.

First he imagined he was responsible for what David Greene and several
others have written here -- and now he seems to have morphed into Queen
Victoria -- and is telling folks they are "insolent" -- and he is not
amused.

Peter, while in a drunken stupor, fell off his motorcycle and cracked
his head against a cobblestone when he was a spunky, but callow and
foolish, youth at Oxford -- and the effects continually come back to
bite him in the arse and the brain on USENET -- after which he becomes
particularly feral, rabid and febrile.

Stewart insists he was merely "tipsy" of course.

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

Deus Vult.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Peter Stewart]

Has what passes for your brain got stuck in "Send" mode, Spencer?

You seem to be posting multipes of each foolish message today, and of course
these don't improve from repetition.

Peter Stewart

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Hilarious!
Vivien, it just doesn't get any better than this!
Peter 'Pogue' Stewart is showing off his damaged brain again --
anserinely flaunting it from the proscenium.
First he imagined he was responsible for what David Greene and several
others have written here -- and now he seems to have morphed into Queen
Victoria -- and is telling folks they are "insolent" -- and he is not
amused.
Peter, while in a drunken stupor, fell off his motorcycle and cracked
his head against a cobblestone when he was a spunky, but callow and
foolish, youth at Oxford -- and the effects continually come back to
bite him in the arse and the brain on USENET -- after which he becomes
particularly feral, rabid and febrile.
Stewart insists he was merely "tipsy" of course.
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
Deus Vult.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor

[J***@aol.com]

Dear Spencer and others,
''Only a Lecturer? Doesn`t preparing
and delivering lectures account for about half of a Professor`s duties ? Then
too, depending upon the demand for tenured Professors in his specific area of
expertise (I believe Someone said it was Spanish Medieval History ), You might
not find a University in need of a fully tenured Professor. Those of You being
in similar jobs know that the University system in the United States caters
first to Sports, second to Maths and Sciences, then to the studies of
Political Sciences, of Liberal Arts and Foreign Languages and that the rule is to
keep costs down.
I had the opportunity to read Nat`s review and thought as many have
said that it was well balanced and generally favorable to Douglas Richardson.
It has been suggested that Nat was not qualified to review a book because He
hasn`t written one. I disagree. Siskel and Ebert to my knowledge never made a
movie and Duncan Hines wasn`t a great chef, yet in their fields They were / are
All considered expert critics.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Peter Stewart]

<***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@aol.com...

<snip>

Post by J***@aol.com
I had the opportunity to read Nat`s review and thought as many have
said that it was well balanced and generally favorable to Douglas Richardson.
It has been suggested that Nat was not qualified to review a book because He
hasn`t written one. I disagree. Siskel and Ebert to my knowledge never made a
movie and Duncan Hines wasn`t a great chef, yet in their fields They were / are
All considered expert critics.

Quite right, James - this is an utterly crazy notion that surfaces here from
time to time. Taken to a logical conclusion, the only person thoroughly
qualified to review any book would have to be its author, since only he
could be inside the experience of having written that particular work.

The purpose of criticism in this field is to inform potential readers about
what they might expect to find in a book, to illuminate themes developed or
views expressed in it, and to comment on these from the critic's knowledge
and experience as a student/consumer of similar material, NOT AS A
COMPETITOR.

In literature only a very few writers, for instance Dryden and TS Eliot,
have been equally accomplished as creators and critics. In film I can't
think of anyone, at least who is a household name in the English-speaking
world (few, like Peter Bogdanovic, even try). In cookery practitioners need
to be acute at tasting foods in the course of preparation, rather than the
finished item. In scholarship this kind of dual skill is expected, largely
because plain information takes the place of inspiration.

Nat was perfectly well-qualified to undertake his review for TAG, and he did
it exceptionally well.

Peter Stewart

[John Brandon]

In literature only a very few writers, for instance Dryden and TS Eliot, have been equally accomplished as creators and critics.

Very odd opinion here. Dryden and Eliot were both fairly minor poets,
and Eliot, at least, was very lacking as a critic. So much for the
brilliant literary insights of Mr. Peter M. Stewart (or is it Hon.
Peter M. Stewart?) ...

[John Brandon]

... or even Lord Peter Stewart? UGH.

[Family Historian]

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Ed Crabtree - Missouri, USA
***@kc.rr.com
All outgoing messages checked by McAfee VirusScan

[John Brandon]

Yeah, that too.