Discussion:
from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)
(too old to reply)
Daryl Verstreate
2013-07-26 00:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Has anyone been able to prove the Arnold line? I can prove down to Lord Richard Talbot + Sarah De Beauchamp and upto William Arnold + Christian PEAKE with little difficulty

On Sunday, July 26, 1998 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, ***@aol.com wrote:
> I've heard recently that the line from the Arnolds to Charlemagne has been
> disproven. If that's so, at what point is the link broken? I'll run what I
> have through to Joan Gamage who married Roger Arnold about 1465, as the line
> takes off from her. Please let me know what or if anything is an error.
> Thank you for your help.
> Sherry Sharp
>
> 1. Charlemagne-Hildegard
> 2. Carloman Pepin II -Bertha Thoulouse
> 3. Bernhard -Cunigunde m: Abt. 816
> 4. Quentin, Pepin II
> 5 Herbert-Beatrice Vermandois
> 6 Robert
> 7 Hugh-Princess Hadwige m: 938
> 8 Hugh Capet -Ivrea
> 9 Robert m Constance De Toulouse m: 1002
> 10 Adele-Baldwin m: 1028
> 11 Matilda- William m: 1053
> 12 Gundred-William Warren m: Bef. 1077
> 13 William Warren-Isabel (Elizabeth) Vermandois m: Bef. 1118
> 14 Gundred Warren-Roger Newburgh m: Abt. 1145
> 15 Waleran Newburgh
> 16.Alice Newburgh-William Manduit m: Abt. 1190
> 17 Isabel Manduit-William Beauchamp m: Abt. 1215
> 18 William Beauchamp-Maud Debraose m: Abt. 1250
> 19 Sarah Beauchamp-Richard Talbot m: Abt. 1275
> 20 Gwenllian Talbot-Payne Tuberville m:Abt. 1340
> 21 Sarah Tuberville-William Gamage m: Abt. 1360
> 22 Gilbert Gamage-Lettice Seymour m: Abt. 1385
> 23 William Gamage Mary De Rodburg m: Abt. 1410
> 24 Thomas Gamage -Matilda m: Abt. 1440
> 25 Joan Gamage- Roger Arnold m: Abt. 1465
Leo van de Pas
2013-07-26 02:51:59 UTC
Permalink
In this line nr 12 Gundred is not a daughter of William the Conqueror. And
so THIS line is broken, however in my system I have at least four other
lines from Joan Gamage to Charlemagne.
Leo

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Daryl Verstreate
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 10:59 AM
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)

Has anyone been able to prove the Arnold line? I can prove down to Lord
Richard Talbot + Sarah De Beauchamp and upto William Arnold + Christian
PEAKE with little difficulty

On Sunday, July 26, 1998 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, ***@aol.com wrote:
> I've heard recently that the line from the Arnolds to Charlemagne has
> been disproven. If that's so, at what point is the link broken? I'll
> run what I have through to Joan Gamage who married Roger Arnold about
> 1465, as the line takes off from her. Please let me know what or if
anything is an error.
> Thank you for your help.
> Sherry Sharp
>
> 1. Charlemagne-Hildegard
> 2. Carloman Pepin II -Bertha Thoulouse
> 3. Bernhard -Cunigunde m: Abt. 816
> 4. Quentin, Pepin II
> 5 Herbert-Beatrice Vermandois
> 6 Robert
> 7 Hugh-Princess Hadwige m: 938
> 8 Hugh Capet -Ivrea
> 9 Robert m Constance De Toulouse m: 1002
> 10 Adele-Baldwin m: 1028
> 11 Matilda- William m: 1053
> 12 Gundred-William Warren m: Bef. 1077
> 13 William Warren-Isabel (Elizabeth) Vermandois m: Bef. 1118
> 14 Gundred Warren-Roger Newburgh m: Abt. 1145
> 15 Waleran Newburgh
> 16.Alice Newburgh-William Manduit m: Abt. 1190
> 17 Isabel Manduit-William Beauchamp m: Abt. 1215
> 18 William Beauchamp-Maud Debraose m: Abt. 1250
> 19 Sarah Beauchamp-Richard Talbot m: Abt. 1275
> 20 Gwenllian Talbot-Payne Tuberville m:Abt. 1340
> 21 Sarah Tuberville-William Gamage m: Abt. 1360
> 22 Gilbert Gamage-Lettice Seymour m: Abt. 1385
> 23 William Gamage Mary De Rodburg m: Abt. 1410
> 24 Thomas Gamage -Matilda m: Abt. 1440
> 25 Joan Gamage- Roger Arnold m: Abt. 1465


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Monica Kanellis
2013-07-26 12:35:44 UTC
Permalink
It would have been broken if the line had gone through William, but it goes
through Matilda.

Must be many more than 4 lines from Joan to Charlemagne.

M


On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Leo van de Pas <***@netspeed.com.au>wrote:

> In this line nr 12 Gundred is not a daughter of William the Conqueror. And
> so THIS line is broken, however in my system I have at least four other
> lines from Joan Gamage to Charlemagne.
> Leo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com
> [mailto:gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Daryl Verstreate
> Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 10:59 AM
> To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)
>
> Has anyone been able to prove the Arnold line? I can prove down to Lord
> Richard Talbot + Sarah De Beauchamp and upto William Arnold + Christian
> PEAKE with little difficulty
>
> On Sunday, July 26, 1998 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, ***@aol.com wrote:
> > I've heard recently that the line from the Arnolds to Charlemagne has
> > been disproven. If that's so, at what point is the link broken? I'll
> > run what I have through to Joan Gamage who married Roger Arnold about
> > 1465, as the line takes off from her. Please let me know what or if
> anything is an error.
> > Thank you for your help.
> > Sherry Sharp
> >
> > 1. Charlemagne-Hildegard
> > 2. Carloman Pepin II -Bertha Thoulouse
> > 3. Bernhard -Cunigunde m: Abt. 816
> > 4. Quentin, Pepin II
> > 5 Herbert-Beatrice Vermandois
> > 6 Robert
> > 7 Hugh-Princess Hadwige m: 938
> > 8 Hugh Capet -Ivrea
> > 9 Robert m Constance De Toulouse m: 1002
> > 10 Adele-Baldwin m: 1028
> > 11 Matilda- William m: 1053
> > 12 Gundred-William Warren m: Bef. 1077
> > 13 William Warren-Isabel (Elizabeth) Vermandois m: Bef. 1118
> > 14 Gundred Warren-Roger Newburgh m: Abt. 1145
> > 15 Waleran Newburgh
> > 16.Alice Newburgh-William Manduit m: Abt. 1190
> > 17 Isabel Manduit-William Beauchamp m: Abt. 1215
> > 18 William Beauchamp-Maud Debraose m: Abt. 1250
> > 19 Sarah Beauchamp-Richard Talbot m: Abt. 1275
> > 20 Gwenllian Talbot-Payne Tuberville m:Abt. 1340
> > 21 Sarah Tuberville-William Gamage m: Abt. 1360
> > 22 Gilbert Gamage-Lettice Seymour m: Abt. 1385
> > 23 William Gamage Mary De Rodburg m: Abt. 1410
> > 24 Thomas Gamage -Matilda m: Abt. 1440
> > 25 Joan Gamage- Roger Arnold m: Abt. 1465
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
Olivier
2013-07-26 14:08:18 UTC
Permalink
I have 680 links fron Joan Gamage to Charlemagne only by Cecily Beauchamp :

Cecily Beauchamp ca 1330-1394 &
Roger Seymour 1314
|
William Seymour ca 1342-1391 &
Margaret de Brockbury ca 1345
|
Lettice Seymour ca 1357 &
Gilbert de Gamage ca 1340-1382
|
William Gamage ca 1380-1419 &
Mary Rodborough ca 1380
|
Thomas Gamage ca 1408 &
Janet Dennys ca 1410
|
Joan Gamage 1444
Leo van de Pas
2013-07-26 12:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Dear Monica,

You misunderstood. Gundred is not a daughter of William the Conqueror nor of
his wife Matilda of Flanders.

When counting in my system and there are so many generations involved, it
takes a long time, and there may well be more than 4 lines. I mentioned the
four lines to show there was a line to Charlemagne just not the one
displayed.

Leo



From: Monica Kanellis [mailto:***@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 10:36 PM
To: Leo van de Pas
Cc: Daryl Verstreate; GenMedieval
Subject: Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)



It would have been broken if the line had gone through William, but it goes
through Matilda.



Must be many more than 4 lines from Joan to Charlemagne.



M



On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Leo van de Pas <***@netspeed.com.au>
wrote:

In this line nr 12 Gundred is not a daughter of William the Conqueror. And
so THIS line is broken, however in my system I have at least four other
lines from Joan Gamage to Charlemagne.
Leo


-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Daryl Verstreate
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 10:59 AM
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)

Has anyone been able to prove the Arnold line? I can prove down to Lord
Richard Talbot + Sarah De Beauchamp and upto William Arnold + Christian
PEAKE with little difficulty

On Sunday, July 26, 1998 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, ***@aol.com wrote:
> I've heard recently that the line from the Arnolds to Charlemagne has
> been disproven. If that's so, at what point is the link broken? I'll
> run what I have through to Joan Gamage who married Roger Arnold about
> 1465, as the line takes off from her. Please let me know what or if
anything is an error.
> Thank you for your help.
> Sherry Sharp
>
> 1. Charlemagne-Hildegard
> 2. Carloman Pepin II -Bertha Thoulouse
> 3. Bernhard -Cunigunde m: Abt. 816
> 4. Quentin, Pepin II
> 5 Herbert-Beatrice Vermandois
> 6 Robert
> 7 Hugh-Princess Hadwige m: 938
> 8 Hugh Capet -Ivrea
> 9 Robert m Constance De Toulouse m: 1002
> 10 Adele-Baldwin m: 1028
> 11 Matilda- William m: 1053
> 12 Gundred-William Warren m: Bef. 1077
> 13 William Warren-Isabel (Elizabeth) Vermandois m: Bef. 1118
> 14 Gundred Warren-Roger Newburgh m: Abt. 1145
> 15 Waleran Newburgh
> 16.Alice Newburgh-William Manduit m: Abt. 1190
> 17 Isabel Manduit-William Beauchamp m: Abt. 1215
> 18 William Beauchamp-Maud Debraose m: Abt. 1250
> 19 Sarah Beauchamp-Richard Talbot m: Abt. 1275
> 20 Gwenllian Talbot-Payne Tuberville m:Abt. 1340
> 21 Sarah Tuberville-William Gamage m: Abt. 1360
> 22 Gilbert Gamage-Lettice Seymour m: Abt. 1385
> 23 William Gamage Mary De Rodburg m: Abt. 1410
> 24 Thomas Gamage -Matilda m: Abt. 1440
> 25 Joan Gamage- Roger Arnold m: Abt. 1465


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Monica Kanellis
2013-07-26 17:44:02 UTC
Permalink
I'm not supporting any particular descent for Gundred, just pointing that
the logic of the line as stated is not broken by her not being the daughter
of William.

what is the most recent thinking on her ancestry?



On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Leo van de Pas <***@netspeed.com.au>wrote:

> Dear Monica,****
>
> You misunderstood. Gundred is not a daughter of William the Conqueror nor
> of his wife Matilda of Flanders.****
>
> When counting in my system and there are so many generations involved, it
> takes a long time, and there may well be more than 4 lines. I mentioned the
> four lines to show there was a line to Charlemagne just not the one
> displayed. ****
>
> Leo ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Monica Kanellis [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, 26 July 2013 10:36 PM
> *To:* Leo van de Pas
> *Cc:* Daryl Verstreate; GenMedieval
>
> *Subject:* Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)****
>
> ** **
>
> It would have been broken if the line had gone through William, but it
> goes through Matilda. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Must be many more than 4 lines from Joan to Charlemagne. ****
>
> ** **
>
> M****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Leo van de Pas <***@netspeed.com.au>
> wrote:****
>
> In this line nr 12 Gundred is not a daughter of William the Conqueror. And
> so THIS line is broken, however in my system I have at least four other
> lines from Joan Gamage to Charlemagne.
> Leo****
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com
> [mailto:gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Daryl Verstreate
> Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 10:59 AM
> To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)
>
> Has anyone been able to prove the Arnold line? I can prove down to Lord
> Richard Talbot + Sarah De Beauchamp and upto William Arnold + Christian
> PEAKE with little difficulty
>
> On Sunday, July 26, 1998 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, ***@aol.com wrote:
> > I've heard recently that the line from the Arnolds to Charlemagne has
> > been disproven. If that's so, at what point is the link broken? I'll
> > run what I have through to Joan Gamage who married Roger Arnold about
> > 1465, as the line takes off from her. Please let me know what or if
> anything is an error.
> > Thank you for your help.
> > Sherry Sharp
> >
> > 1. Charlemagne-Hildegard
> > 2. Carloman Pepin II -Bertha Thoulouse
> > 3. Bernhard -Cunigunde m: Abt. 816
> > 4. Quentin, Pepin II
> > 5 Herbert-Beatrice Vermandois
> > 6 Robert
> > 7 Hugh-Princess Hadwige m: 938
> > 8 Hugh Capet -Ivrea
> > 9 Robert m Constance De Toulouse m: 1002
> > 10 Adele-Baldwin m: 1028
> > 11 Matilda- William m: 1053
> > 12 Gundred-William Warren m: Bef. 1077
> > 13 William Warren-Isabel (Elizabeth) Vermandois m: Bef. 1118
> > 14 Gundred Warren-Roger Newburgh m: Abt. 1145
> > 15 Waleran Newburgh
> > 16.Alice Newburgh-William Manduit m: Abt. 1190
> > 17 Isabel Manduit-William Beauchamp m: Abt. 1215
> > 18 William Beauchamp-Maud Debraose m: Abt. 1250
> > 19 Sarah Beauchamp-Richard Talbot m: Abt. 1275
> > 20 Gwenllian Talbot-Payne Tuberville m:Abt. 1340
> > 21 Sarah Tuberville-William Gamage m: Abt. 1360
> > 22 Gilbert Gamage-Lettice Seymour m: Abt. 1385
> > 23 William Gamage Mary De Rodburg m: Abt. 1410
> > 24 Thomas Gamage -Matilda m: Abt. 1440
> > 25 Joan Gamage- Roger Arnold m: Abt. 1465
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message****
>
> ** **
>
Leo van de Pas
2013-07-26 21:50:44 UTC
Permalink
William the Conqueror himself is a descendant of Charlemagne.

He had no other women in his life and Matilda only had children with
William, and so by saying that Gundred is not a daughter of William the
Conqueror also implies she is not a child of Matilda either.

Leo



From: Monica Kanellis [mailto:***@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 27 July 2013 3:44 AM
To: Leo van de Pas; GenMedieval
Subject: Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)



I'm not supporting any particular descent for Gundred, just pointing that
the logic of the line as stated is not broken by her not being the daughter
of William.



what is the most recent thinking on her ancestry?





On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Leo van de Pas <***@netspeed.com.au>
wrote:

Dear Monica,

You misunderstood. Gundred is not a daughter of William the Conqueror nor of
his wife Matilda of Flanders.

When counting in my system and there are so many generations involved, it
takes a long time, and there may well be more than 4 lines. I mentioned the
four lines to show there was a line to Charlemagne just not the one
displayed.

Leo



From: Monica Kanellis [mailto:***@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 10:36 PM
To: Leo van de Pas
Cc: Daryl Verstreate; GenMedieval


Subject: Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)



It would have been broken if the line had gone through William, but it goes
through Matilda.



Must be many more than 4 lines from Joan to Charlemagne.



M



On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Leo van de Pas <***@netspeed.com.au>
wrote:

In this line nr 12 Gundred is not a daughter of William the Conqueror. And
so THIS line is broken, however in my system I have at least four other
lines from Joan Gamage to Charlemagne.
Leo


-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Daryl Verstreate
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 10:59 AM
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)

Has anyone been able to prove the Arnold line? I can prove down to Lord
Richard Talbot + Sarah De Beauchamp and upto William Arnold + Christian
PEAKE with little difficulty

On Sunday, July 26, 1998 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, ***@aol.com wrote:
> I've heard recently that the line from the Arnolds to Charlemagne has
> been disproven. If that's so, at what point is the link broken? I'll
> run what I have through to Joan Gamage who married Roger Arnold about
> 1465, as the line takes off from her. Please let me know what or if
anything is an error.
> Thank you for your help.
> Sherry Sharp
>
> 1. Charlemagne-Hildegard
> 2. Carloman Pepin II -Bertha Thoulouse
> 3. Bernhard -Cunigunde m: Abt. 816
> 4. Quentin, Pepin II
> 5 Herbert-Beatrice Vermandois
> 6 Robert
> 7 Hugh-Princess Hadwige m: 938
> 8 Hugh Capet -Ivrea
> 9 Robert m Constance De Toulouse m: 1002
> 10 Adele-Baldwin m: 1028
> 11 Matilda- William m: 1053
> 12 Gundred-William Warren m: Bef. 1077
> 13 William Warren-Isabel (Elizabeth) Vermandois m: Bef. 1118
> 14 Gundred Warren-Roger Newburgh m: Abt. 1145
> 15 Waleran Newburgh
> 16.Alice Newburgh-William Manduit m: Abt. 1190
> 17 Isabel Manduit-William Beauchamp m: Abt. 1215
> 18 William Beauchamp-Maud Debraose m: Abt. 1250
> 19 Sarah Beauchamp-Richard Talbot m: Abt. 1275
> 20 Gwenllian Talbot-Payne Tuberville m:Abt. 1340
> 21 Sarah Tuberville-William Gamage m: Abt. 1360
> 22 Gilbert Gamage-Lettice Seymour m: Abt. 1385
> 23 William Gamage Mary De Rodburg m: Abt. 1410
> 24 Thomas Gamage -Matilda m: Abt. 1440
> 25 Joan Gamage- Roger Arnold m: Abt. 1465


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Monica Kanellis
2013-07-27 13:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Thanks, taf, this is very helpful. I was not familiar with Gerbod of
Oosterzele and am pleased to push back another generation.

best

M


On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:02 PM, taf <***@clearwire.net> wrote:

> On Friday, July 26, 2013 10:44:02 AM UTC-7, Monica Kanellis wrote:
> > I'm not supporting any particular descent for Gundred, just pointing that
> >
> > the logic of the line as stated is not broken by her not being the
> daughter
> >
> > of William.
> >
> >
> >
> > what is the most recent thinking on her ancestry?
>
> The basic scholarly consensus on her has been unchanged since the late
> 1800s (but unfortunately the older traditions continue to be repeated).
> She was entirely unconnected to either William or Matilda. Instead was
> sister of Gerbod the Fleming, Earl of Chester, and daughter of Gerbod of
> Oosterzele, hereditary advocate of the Abbey of St. Bertin. The connection
> to William was a sloppy invention made centuries later to glorify the
> founding patrons of Lewes Priory, while the suggestion that she was
> daughter just of Matilda and not of William was just a misplaced attempt
> made in the late 1800s to 'rescue' the flawed tradition once it became
> clear it could not be correct as stated.
>
> The easiest Carolingian line, starting with what you have, is that
> Gundred's daughter-in-law, Elizabeth of Vermandois, was daughter of Hugh of
> V, son of Henry I of France, son of Robert II of France, who is erroneously
> given as Gundred's great-grandfather. Elizabeth's mother is a male-line
> descendant of Heribert, shown in generation 5 of the line presented). The
> other two lines, I would assume, are through Adelaide of Aquitaine, wife of
> Hugh Capet (gen 8) - a connection generally but not universally accepted,
> and through Constance of Provence, whose supposedly owes her name to
> descent from Charles Constantine, son of Louis the Blind, although this
> line is more problematic, being based on little more than the supposition
> that their similar names must indicate a relationship.
>
> taf
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
l***@att.net
2013-08-01 07:31:14 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, July 25, 2013 5:58:41 PM UTC-7, Daryl Verstreate wrote:
> Has anyone been able to prove the Arnold line? I can prove down to Lord Richard Talbot + Sarah De Beauchamp and upto William Arnold + Christian PEAKE with little difficulty
>
>
>
> On Sunday, July 26, 1998 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, ***@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I've heard recently that the line from the Arnolds to Charlemagne has been
>
> > disproven. If that's so, at what point is the link broken? I'll run what I
>
> > have through to Joan Gamage who married Roger Arnold about 1465, as the line
>
> > takes off from her. Please let me know what or if anything is an error.
>
> > Thank you for your help.
>
> > Sherry Sharp



Kay Allen has mentioned that this lineage is erroneous.

The lineage prepared by Horatio Somerby was published here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=jtYSJeIFBFAC&pg=PA432&dq=henry+drowne+horatio+somerby&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tQn6UYWuCsSZrgGAiYGwCA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=henry%20drowne%20horatio%20somerby&f=false


The Arnold pedigree was analyzed by Edson Salisbury Jones in
1915, detailing which parts had no evidence:

http://books.google.com/books?id=AQKXGD1BS4AC&pg=PA64&dq=edson+salisbury+jones+arnold&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1Qr6UbORGJKrqQHclYHYBw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=edson%20salisbury%20jones%20arnold&f=false


Leslie
j***@gmail.com
2013-08-01 11:01:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, August 1, 2013 3:31:14 AM UTC-4, ***@att.net wrote:
> On Thursday, July 25, 2013 5:58:41 PM UTC-7, Daryl Verstreate wrote:
>
> > Has anyone been able to prove the Arnold line? I can prove down to Lord Richard Talbot + Sarah De Beauchamp and upto William Arnold + Christian PEAKE with little difficulty

> The lineage prepared by Horatio Somerby was published here:
>
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=jtYSJeIFBFAC&pg=PA432&dq=henry+drowne+horatio+somerby&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tQn6UYWuCsSZrgGAiYGwCA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=henry%20drowne%20horatio%20somerby&f=false
>

Just for those new list members that may not be aware; it is worth always mentioning that Horatio Somerby was a known fraud; inventing material at will
David Teague
2013-08-03 03:01:18 UTC
Permalink
Hello, all.

It's been quite a while since I saw this addressed, but I can't recall either the answer or the date of the discussion.

I am subscribed using my old Hotmail account, and I am not receiving many of the posts. How do I adjust the situation so that I can receive the posts I have obviously been missing?

Thanks in advance,

David Teague
Don Stone
2013-08-03 14:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Hello, David,

I am the GEN-MED listowner currently "on duty," so I'll try to help you
solve this.

In general, subscription questions, etc., can be addressed to
gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com, which will come to either Todd Farmerie
or me, as appropriate.

Is it possible that some of your GEN-MED messages are being censored as
junk by Hotmail? Do you have a different email account you could use
instead? (Perhaps subscribe at both addresses for a while to confirm
that you get more messages at one address than the other.)

-- Don Stone


On 8/2/2013 9:01 PM, David Teague wrote:
> Hello, all.
>
> It's been quite a while since I saw this addressed, but I can't recall either the answer or the date of the discussion.
>
> I am subscribed using my old Hotmail account, and I am not receiving many of the posts. How do I adjust the situation so that I can receive the posts I have obviously been missing?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> David Teague
Kay Allen
2013-08-03 19:27:29 UTC
Permalink
I have a yahoo account with ATT. I, too. am not receiving many of the posts.
And they are not showing up in spam.

K



________________________________
From: Don Stone <***@donstonetech.com>
To: David Teague <***@hotmail.com>
Cc: "GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com" <gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 3, 2013 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: A technical question about the newsgroup


Hello, David,

I am the GEN-MED listowner currently "on duty," so I'll try to help you
solve this.

In general, subscription questions, etc., can be addressed to
gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com, which will come to either Todd Farmerie
or me, as appropriate.

Is it possible that some of your GEN-MED messages are being censored as
junk by Hotmail?  Do you have a different email account you could use
instead?  (Perhaps subscribe at both addresses for a while to confirm
that you get more messages at one address than the other.)

  -- Don Stone


On 8/2/2013 9:01 PM, David Teague wrote:
> Hello, all.
>
> It's been quite a while since I saw this addressed, but I can't recall either the answer or the date of the discussion.
>
> I am subscribed using my old Hotmail account, and I am not receiving many of the posts. How do I adjust the situation so that I can receive the posts I have obviously been missing?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> David Teague                      


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
David Teague
2013-08-04 00:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Don,

Thanks for the prompt response.

To answer your questions, I have -- on occasion -- seen newsgroup messages in my Junk folder, but that almost never happens now, nor has it happened for a long time. As for another email address, I can certainly try that, as I have more than one address, and then see what happens.

I do recall that there was some discussion in the past, when a change on the part of Google, or RootsWeb, or somebody external to the group, would reduce the number of emails which some of us would receive from that point on, but I don't recall whose doings were involved, nor the date of the discussion, nor the suggested remedy.

David Teague



> Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 12:27:29 -0700
> From: ***@pacbell.net
> Subject: Re: A technical question about the newsgroup
> To: ***@donstonetech.com
> CC: gen-***@rootsweb.com
>
> I have a yahoo account with ATT. I, too. am not receiving many of the posts.
> And they are not showing up in spam.
>
> K
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Don Stone <***@donstonetech.com>
> To: David Teague <***@hotmail.com>
> Cc: "GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com" <gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 3, 2013 7:12 AM
> Subject: Re: A technical question about the newsgroup
>
>
> Hello, David,
>
> I am the GEN-MED listowner currently "on duty," so I'll try to help you
> solve this.
>
> In general, subscription questions, etc., can be addressed to
> gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com, which will come to either Todd Farmerie
> or me, as appropriate.
>
> Is it possible that some of your GEN-MED messages are being censored as
> junk by Hotmail? Do you have a different email account you could use
> instead? (Perhaps subscribe at both addresses for a while to confirm
> that you get more messages at one address than the other.)
>
> -- Don Stone
>
>
> On 8/2/2013 9:01 PM, David Teague wrote:
> > Hello, all.
> >
> > It's been quite a while since I saw this addressed, but I can't recall either the answer or the date of the discussion.
> >
> > I am subscribed using my old Hotmail account, and I am not receiving many of the posts. How do I adjust the situation so that I can receive the posts I have obviously been missing?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > David Teague
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...