On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 8:31:30 AM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > On 7/7/2016 10:12 AM, taf via wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 6:36:56 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > >> Well Rollo´s son contemporany Planctus states (without naming her) that > >> she was a Christian, and that her son William was born overseas. > > This was said about William's (generic) mother, not about Dudo's Poppa > > in particular. It is probably a mistake to assume that they refer to > > the same person. > > For what it is worth, Dudo does state that Poppa was William's mother. > This is not necessarily inconsistent with the statement of the Planctus, > but it would also be wrong to say that the Planctus supports Dudo's > statements about William's mother. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. We have Dudo saying that William's mother was Poppa, daughter of Berenger, captured during a raid on Bayeux. Separately we have Planctus claiming that William's mother was a Christian born overseas. While there is nothing about these statements that makes them mutually exclusive, given the scant nature of the historical record and Dudo's inaccuracies on other points, it can't be taken for granted that Planctus was referring to the Poppa of Bayeux described by Dudo as being William's mother. taf

Em quinta-feira, 7 de julho de 2016 16:19:39 UTC+1, taf escreveu: > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 7:01:00 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > I was wrong, the genealogist who uses the connection Millicent de Rethel > > -William de Camville isn´t Ed Mann it is Leo Van de Pas. > > Not as I am reading it - he shows William de Camville as son of RIchard de Camville, but by Adelicia and not by Milicent, and it looks like it has been that way since 2003 at least. > > taf Well so the note in which he used it is probably of before 2003.

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 7:01:00 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > I was wrong, the genealogist who uses the connection Millicent de Rethel > -William de Camville isn´t Ed Mann it is Leo Van de Pas. Not as I am reading it - he shows William de Camville as son of RIchard de Camville, but by Adelicia and not by Milicent, and it looks like it has been that way since 2003 at least. taf

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 6:36:56 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Well Rollo´s son contemporany Planctus states (without naming her) that > she was a Christian, and that her son William was born overseas. This was said about William's (generic) mother, not about Dudo's Poppa in particular. It is probably a mistake to assume that they refer to the same person. taf

Em sexta-feira, 1 de julho de 2016 00:57:44 UTC+1, Peter Stewart via escreveu: > On 30/06/2016 11:50 PM, pauloricardocanedo2 via wrote: > > Well even if Ed Mann uses some false connections in some of his works it doesn´t mean the other works he does are wrong. > > > > > > Of course it doesn't - however, it does mean that the work is most > probably no better than other bunglers could do for themselves. > > This is the same pitiful excuse that has been made here for depending on > Medieval Lands. > > The facile habit of using readily-accessible stashes of data causes many > an amateur in medieval genealogy to waste time and effort. It means that > one busy ignoramus exerts an influence in this field that is out of all > proportion to the skill and sense brought to it. > > Self-indulgent clinging to trust in self-evident charlatans is currently > disgracing two of the world's greatest nations. It doesn't have to > disfigure SGM discussions as well. > > Peter Stewart I was wrong, the genealogist who uses the connection Millicent de Rethel-William de Camville isn´t Ed Mann it is Leo Van de Pas.

Em sexta-feira, 1 de julho de 2016 00:57:44 UTC+1, Peter Stewart via escreveu: > On 30/06/2016 11:50 PM, pauloricardocanedo2 via wrote: > > Well even if Ed Mann uses some false connections in some of his works it doesn´t mean the other works he does are wrong. > > > > > > Of course it doesn't - however, it does mean that the work is most > probably no better than other bunglers could do for themselves. > > This is the same pitiful excuse that has been made here for depending on > Medieval Lands. > > The facile habit of using readily-accessible stashes of data causes many > an amateur in medieval genealogy to waste time and effort. It means that > one busy ignoramus exerts an influence in this field that is out of all > proportion to the skill and sense brought to it. > > Self-indulgent clinging to trust in self-evident charlatans is currently > disgracing two of the world's greatest nations. It doesn't have to > disfigure SGM discussions as well. > > Peter Stewart No the genealogist isn´t Ed Mann it is Leo van de Pas.

Em terça-feira, 31 de maio de 2016 23:51:46 UTC+1, Peter Stewart via escreveu: > On 31/05/2016 10:46 PM, Kathy Becker via wrote: > > > >> There is definitely not a consensus about this - the ultimate source for > >> "Popa" as a wife of Rollo is Dudo of Saint-Quentin, a notoriously > >> divisive figure considered by many historians to be a fantasist and > >> something of a pest. > >> > >> Dame Jinty Nelson wrote in 2011: "It is high time that historians > >> stopped citing Dudo, with however many qualifications, as supplying any > >> evidence at all for Rollo's wives or mistresses." > >> > >> It is by no means certain that Dudo's "Popa" even existed, much less > >> that her father was Berengar. > >> Peter Stewart > > > > Thank you very much, Peter. After I re-read all of my sources, my gut told me, "When in doubt, leave it out." I love your comment about Dudo. That made me laugh. > > > > > > Dudo makes me laugh, I can only think of him as a comedian trying very > hard to be a serious Franco-Norman moralist. > > My hunch is that "Popa" was invented by him to cast a glow of Christian > association over Rollo's immediate family. The name is peculiar for a > female, though suspiciously similar to Poppo (also called Poppa) the > German missionary credited with converting the Danes (Dudo called the > Normans "Dacians", meaning Danes). > > Peter Stewart Well Rollo´s son contemporany Planctus states (without naming her) that she was a Christian, and that her son William was born overseas.

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 1:16:20 PM UTC+1, Ian Goddard wrote: > On 04/07/16 12:56, WJH wrote: > > d. merging that preserves data as alternates (FS - N) > > Aaaargh! You don't merge people - it's a nonsense concept. So you > can't merge records of people, otherwise you have a data model that > doesn't model what it sets out to model. Admittedly this is a factor > that seems to be ignored by just about all genealogical software, but > then they all seem to have the same problem. If you make an error how > do you demerge them? > Well Familysearch seems to be able to demerge people and my guess would be that the bitlock technology I've mentioned would also allow it since it retains every change made to the data. > If you have two source records which you think apply to the same person > you have a record for each. You also have a record for the person you > think they represent. You then have link records which link the source > records to the people records*. If you then decide one of the links is > wrong you can simply deprecate it or even delete it entirely. > > A huge problem with existing genealogical software, be it structured or > wiki-based, is that it facilitates, if not positively encourages, > jumping to conclusions. > > Genealogical research starts with evidence. If we are to start a > collaborative approach let's have one that starts with evidence. > > *I oversimplify. > Thankyou! I accept I was envisaging a database of "people" comprised of data "fields" (e.g. name) linked to "sources" whih might be refernces or might be scanned images, largely because as you say that's how most genealogical databases are structured, at least on the surface. What you're suggesting below, if I understand you aright is that the sources should stand separately from the people and the genealogists' job would be to link them together. For me the ironic thing is that this almost exactly describes how Familysearch is structured. They have records datasets e.g. a census which in some cases link to images on their or another site. They also have a list of people to whom you can link the records and if the record contains new data for the individual, it will populate it for you, based on what has been transcribed (which in most cases is less than is available if you can see the image). What you can't do (at the moment) is link the same record to two people at once. What I don't know is how genealogists can add sources in a way that makes them viewable by others, but that's because I haven't got to that stage yet. Perhaps it would be worth you taking another look at FS, if only so that you can correct any misunderstanding... > What you actually need is a record or records for the text and/or image > of each original document, supported by a hierarchy of records giving > its provenance. > > You then need a record for each individual named as playing a role in > the source. Even deriving these isn't as easy as it seems: without > digging out the exact text I have a record dealing with the disposal of > the property of a John Godard d 1328. It mentions the property of John > Godard in a context which doesn't make it clear whether this is the > deceased (e.g. the said John Godard) or another and in the context I'd > keep them as separate references. > > You then have a separate set of records which represent the people you > think existed and link these to the name records from the texts. Apart > from being a non-destructive option to merging it enables you to express > possible alternative interpretations. In the example I gave above I > know from other records that there was a second John Godard, son of the > deceased so it would be feasible to link the role record to both of these. > > -- > Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng > at austonley org uk

On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 10:53:19 PM UTC, Mary E. Gossage wrote: > I appreciate the correction Stewart, and its useful - thank you. > > Luckily it isn't the Simcock/Budd descent I'm most > interested in, but instead her brother Thomas' line, > and his daughter Mary. This line intersects in NJ > with my other Budd line 4 generations later which I > have not been able to trace anywhere. > > 8. Thomas Budd m. Susanna Robinson. > 9. Mary Budd b. 2 Sept 1677 > m. Dr. Goslin > m. Francis Collins b. 6 Jan 1635 d. 6 Feb 1720 > > You know about the Budd family. Do you know if there's > a published genealogy? I haven't checked CP or any other > reference yet, but I guess there could be mention of the > family, so will investigate. > > Mary Gossage > > > In article <3c8af416.131002049@news.mindspring.com> sbaldw@mindspring.com > (Stewart Baldwin) writes:>From: sbaldw@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) > >Subject: Re: BUDD family 1450 Essex > >Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 06:11:38 GMT > > >On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 22:10:08 mdt, aethel@aaahawk.com (Mary E. Gossage) > >wrote: > > >>Any comments on the accuracy of the line below? > > >>... > > >>1 John Budd b. 1450 m. Elizabeth Bishoppe b. 1450 > > >>... > > >> 7 Thomas Budd b. 23 May 1617 d. 22 June 1670 > >> m. 18 April 1635 Sussanah Prigge b. 1611 > >> m. 12 August 1645 Johanna Knight b. 1615/1624+ > >> 8 Elizabeth Budd b. 1647 m. John Simcock > > >If you are researching these Budds because of a descent from the > >alleged Budd-Simcock marriage given above, then you are probably > >wasting your time tracing these Budds, because there is no evidence > >that John Simcock's wife Elizabeth was a member of this (or any other) > >Budd family, and there are a number of reasons for believing that she > >was not. > > >Stewart Baldwin Hello Mary, I've just come across this post online, I am also looking at the Budd lineage and have gone back (directly) to 'John Budd b. 1450 m. Elizabeth Bishoppe b. 1450' At this point I am stuck as records appear scant at best. I do notice that John Budd is also referred to as 'Jean Bude' although this also fails to lead anywhere significant. This is my paternal lineage and I would be keen to look further back. Any direction you can suggest is appreciated. Incidentally, I do have cousins in NJ ! Best, Dan

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 12:37:45 PM UTC+1, Ian Goddard wrote: > On 06/07/16 12:12, WJH wrote: > > I'm really thinking about the transition period (which I accept doesn't concern medievalists) where it's not always clear whether a date is OS or NS and so any comparison with other sources needs to bear in mind that that date may be equivalent to one 11 days earlier OR later. > > Forget 11 days - it can be a year out if you don't know what date was > taken for the start of the year! > True! But my main point remains that this is the sort of check that computers do better than humans. > -- > Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng > at austonley org uk

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 10:01:05 AM UTC-7, Patrick Nielsen Hayden wrote: > On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 07:34:45 -0700 (PDT), > Paulo Canedo <pauloricardocanedo2@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Em terça-feira, 5 de julho de 2016 18:13:53 UTC+1, Kay Allen via escreveu: > > >> John, Timothy, and Thomas were the sons of a Robert Stanley of Tenterden, > >> Kent and his wife Ruth.I see no evidence presented that she was a > >> Garland. This is from the cited article from Leslie Mahler FASG. > > >> Kay Allen, descended from John > > > > Thanks, is the ancestry of Robert known. > > Not according to the cited article, the title of which is "Re-Examining the > English Origin of the Stanley Brothers of Hartford, Connecticut: A Case of > Invented Records." > > Of Robert Stanley, Mahler says "Robert Stan(d)ley was probably born about > 1570. Neither his baptism nor his marriage is found in the surviving parish > registers of the Weald of Kent. He was buried at Tenterden on 1 June 1605." > > Patrick Nielsen Hayden > pnh@panix.com The 2009 edition of Ancestors of American Presidents by Gary Roberts, has the couple Robert Stanley & Ruth Garland as being ancestral to the Stanleys of Hartford, Ct. based on the following information: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~stanfam/tenterden.htm Leslie

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 07:34:45 -0700 (PDT), Paulo Canedo <pauloricardocanedo2@gmail.com> wrote: > Em ter��a-feira, 5 de julho de 2016 18:13:53 UTC+1, Kay Allen via escreveu: >> John, Timothy, and Thomas were the sons of a Robert Stanley of Tenterden, >> Kent and his wife Ruth.I see no evidence presented that she was a >> Garland. This is from the cited article from Leslie Mahler FASG. >> Kay Allen, descended from John > > Thanks, is the ancestry of Robert known. Not according to the cited article, the title of which is "Re-Examining the English Origin of the Stanley Brothers of Hartford, Connecticut: A Case of Invented Records." Of Robert Stanley, Mahler says "Robert Stan(d)ley was probably born about 1570. Neither his baptism nor his marriage is found in the surviving parish registers of the Weald of Kent. He was buried at Tenterden on 1 June 1605." Patrick Nielsen Hayden pnh@panix.com

"Henry Tudor was also descended from Henry III through his son Edmund Crouchback." So am I and several million others. Does that make us all Queen of England? :) :) :)

On 04/07/16 12:56, WJH wrote: > d. merging that preserves data as alternates (FS - N) Aaaargh! You don't merge people - it's a nonsense concept. So you can't merge records of people, otherwise you have a data model that doesn't model what it sets out to model. Admittedly this is a factor that seems to be ignored by just about all genealogical software, but then they all seem to have the same problem. If you make an error how do you demerge them? If you have two source records which you think apply to the same person you have a record for each. You also have a record for the person you think they represent. You then have link records which link the source records to the people records*. If you then decide one of the links is wrong you can simply deprecate it or even delete it entirely. A huge problem with existing genealogical software, be it structured or wiki-based, is that it facilitates, if not positively encourages, jumping to conclusions. Genealogical research starts with evidence. If we are to start a collaborative approach let's have one that starts with evidence. *I oversimplify. What you actually need is a record or records for the text and/or image of each original document, supported by a hierarchy of records giving its provenance. You then need a record for each individual named as playing a role in the source. Even deriving these isn't as easy as it seems: without digging out the exact text I have a record dealing with the disposal of the property of a John Godard d 1328. It mentions the property of John Godard in a context which doesn't make it clear whether this is the deceased (e.g. the said John Godard) or another and in the context I'd keep them as separate references. You then have a separate set of records which represent the people you think existed and link these to the name records from the texts. Apart from being a non-destructive option to merging it enables you to express possible alternative interpretations. In the example I gave above I know from other records that there was a second John Godard, son of the deceased so it would be feasible to link the role record to both of these. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On 06/07/16 12:12, WJH wrote: > I'm really thinking about the transition period (which I accept doesn't concern medievalists) where it's not always clear whether a date is OS or NS and so any comparison with other sources needs to bear in mind that that date may be equivalent to one 11 days earlier OR later. Forget 11 days - it can be a year out if you don't know what date was taken for the start of the year! -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

Thomas Bulkeley was first recorded acting as auditor for the Exchequer 1455/57, was employed by the Exchequer for 35 years, and died as Controller Port Sandwich 1490.. No evidence has been found regarding his ancestors. The will of Thomas Bulkeley of Woolwich and Sandwich Kent mentions his first wife Denise (Dionisia?); Children William (employed by Exchequer first 1475), Hohn, Anthony, and one daughter married to Gerald Wood girdler London. His second wife Agness Grey daughter Thomas Grey died 1523 in Lambeth Surrey. Possible ancestors include: 1 . Bulkeley of London (recorded from 1200 onwards) 2 Thomas Bulkeley of Chedle Cheshire (1350-1425) 3 Thomas Bulkeley of Eaton Cheshire (1350-1425) 4 Roger Bulkeley - proctor/chancellor Oxford University (1400-1476) Perhaps someone possesses evidence of a connection with the Grey family in London, Essex, Kent, and Surrey. Treasurers of the Exchequer John Norbury (Bulkeley) 1400, Edmund Grey 1463/64, William Grey 1469/70 also suggest a possible link. It is remarkable that Thomas was employed all his working life in the Exchequer (35 years) Another possible link is Woolwich Manor. The Chicheles (Henry founder All Souls College Oxford University), his sons Robert and William (Sheriffs and Mayor London 1405-1427 held Woolwich Manor). John Tattershall held through his wife Agnes Chichele, and finally Anne Tattershall daughter John who married Sir Edmund Grey. Any ideas? SincerelyYours Paul Bulkley

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:03:04 AM UTC-7, nathan...@gmail.com wrote: > > >So I've heard four specific problems now: (1) missing individuals, (2) technical difficulties, (3) missing source titles, and (4) missing link to FamilySearch Wiki. > > I found the person to report these problems, as well as the fifth problem of the missing pedigrees. It's probably going to take FamilySearch engineers to fix this. I'll keep you posted as soon as I hear anything. I let them know there is a group of people on GenMedieval anxious to have this resolved. > > Nathan Thanks for pursuing this, Nathan. Hopefully we'll see a good outcome from your efforts.

> >So I've heard four specific problems now: (1) missing individuals, (2) technical difficulties, (3) missing source titles, and (4) missing link to FamilySearch Wiki. I found the person to report these problems, as well as the fifth problem of the missing pedigrees. It's probably going to take FamilySearch engineers to fix this. I'll keep you posted as soon as I hear anything. I let them know there is a group of people on GenMedieval anxious to have this resolved. Nathan

Thank you Matt, your answer is appreciated. Robert Spencer

Em terça-feira, 5 de julho de 2016 18:13:53 UTC+1, Kay Allen via escreveu: > John, Timothy, and Thomas were the sons of a Robert Stanley of Tenterden, Kent and his wife Ruth.I see no evidence presented that she was a Garland.  This is from the cited article from Leslie MahlerFASG. > Kay Allen, descended from John Thanks, is the ancestry of Robert known.