http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php?title=Douglas_Richardson,_awaiting_answers&feed=atom&action=historyDouglas Richardson, awaiting answers - Revision history2024-03-29T10:15:49ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.19.0http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php?title=Douglas_Richardson,_awaiting_answers&diff=20215&oldid=prevWjhonson at 20:31, 26 October 20082008-10-26T20:31:37Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 20:31, 26 October 2008</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''A page of questions that Douglas Richardson has yet to answer.'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''A page of questions that Douglas Richardson has yet to answer.'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>People who make public statements, when questioned usually will explain, justify or withdraw their original statement. Sadly, not so [[Douglas Richardson]].  For several years Douglas Richardson has placed himself on a pedestal of superior knowledge of medieval genealogy and medieval Latin. This places responsibility on Richardson, the responsibility of being beyond question, as his reputation as a professional genealogist stands or falls with his actions. Too often he has ignored questions or remarks.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>People who make public statements, when questioned usually will explain, justify or withdraw their original statement. Sadly, not so [[Douglas <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Charles </ins>Richardson]].  For several years Douglas Richardson has placed himself on a pedestal of superior knowledge of medieval genealogy and medieval Latin. This places responsibility on Richardson, the responsibility of being beyond question, as his reputation as a professional genealogist stands or falls with his actions. Too often he has ignored questions or remarks.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>He has stated that he thinks people assessing Gen-Med "expect him to teach them". However not clearing up questions he has caused, can only create havoc and more questions. When can he be relied upon to provide acceptable information? Most of the time he does, but as a trained historian and genealogist he owes his "pedestal position" that he explains, justifies or withdraws his statements when questioned. Silence should not be an option for him.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>He has stated that he thinks people assessing Gen-Med "expect him to teach them". However not clearing up questions he has caused, can only create havoc and more questions. When can he be relied upon to provide acceptable information? Most of the time he does, but as a trained historian and genealogist he owes his "pedestal position" that he explains, justifies or withdraws his statements when questioned. Silence should not be an option for him.</div></td></tr>
</table>Wjhonsonhttp://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php?title=Douglas_Richardson,_awaiting_answers&diff=20214&oldid=prevWjhonson at 20:31, 26 October 20082008-10-26T20:31:11Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 20:31, 26 October 2008</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''A page of questions that Douglas Richardson has yet to answer.'''</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>'''A page of questions that Douglas Richardson has yet to answer.'''</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>People who make public statements, when questioned usually will explain, justify or withdraw their original statement. Sadly, not so Douglas Richardson.  For several years Douglas Richardson has placed himself on a pedestal of superior knowledge of medieval genealogy and medieval Latin. This places responsibility on Richardson, the responsibility of being beyond question, as his reputation as a professional genealogist stands or falls with his actions. Too often he has ignored questions or remarks.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>People who make public statements, when questioned usually will explain, justify or withdraw their original statement. Sadly, not so <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[[</ins>Douglas Richardson<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">]]</ins>.  For several years Douglas Richardson has placed himself on a pedestal of superior knowledge of medieval genealogy and medieval Latin. This places responsibility on Richardson, the responsibility of being beyond question, as his reputation as a professional genealogist stands or falls with his actions. Too often he has ignored questions or remarks.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>He has stated that he thinks people assessing Gen-Med "expect him to teach them". However not clearing up questions he has caused, can only create havoc and more questions. When can he be relied upon to provide acceptable information? Most of the time he does, but as a trained historian and genealogist he owes his "pedestal position" that he explains, justifies or withdraws his statements when questioned. Silence should not be an option for him.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>He has stated that he thinks people assessing Gen-Med "expect him to teach them". However not clearing up questions he has caused, can only create havoc and more questions. When can he be relied upon to provide acceptable information? Most of the time he does, but as a trained historian and genealogist he owes his "pedestal position" that he explains, justifies or withdraws his statements when questioned. Silence should not be an option for him.</div></td></tr>
</table>Wjhonsonhttp://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php?title=Douglas_Richardson,_awaiting_answers&diff=12192&oldid=prevWjhonson at 00:08, 1 February 20082008-02-01T00:08:35Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 00:08, 1 February 2008</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 6:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 6:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>It is unproductive to keep asking the same questions on Gen-Med, therefore it seems better to create a collection of these questions to help Douglas Richardson remember what the outstanding questions, pending his answers, are. If we go to the archives of Gen-Med, no doubt, more unanswered questions can be found.   </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>It is unproductive to keep asking the same questions on Gen-Med, therefore it seems better to create a collection of these questions to help Douglas Richardson remember what the outstanding questions, pending his answers, are. If we go to the archives of Gen-Med, no doubt, more unanswered questions can be found.   </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>1<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">.</del>As a supporter of crossposting, he has been asked how or if it has benefitted Gen-Med, can he advise what are the positive results. And does he still support it?</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Question </ins>1<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>As a supporter of crossposting, he has been asked how or if it has benefitted Gen-Med, can he advise what are the positive results. And does he still support it?</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>2<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">.</del>He has stated that "Countess" was a first name used in medieval times. He has been asked to supply just one sample in either England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Question </ins>2<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>3<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">.</del>He proclaimed that Edward III had at least one son by Alice Perrers, John de Sotheray. Since then it has been noted that Alice Perrers may not even be the mother, let alone Edward III the father.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>He has stated that "Countess" was a first name used in medieval times. He has been asked to supply just one sample in either England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>4<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">.</del>He has been asked for the proof that Ida was Ida de Tosny, and who actually made that discovery.  This has been answered by Todd Farmerie "Mr. Richardson wrote:</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Question </ins>3<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>He proclaimed that Edward III had at least one son by Alice Perrers, John de Sotheray. Since then it has been noted that Alice Perrers may not even be the mother, let alone Edward III the father.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Question </ins>4<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>He has been asked for the proof that Ida was Ida de Tosny, and who actually made that discovery.  This has been answered by Todd Farmerie "Mr. Richardson wrote:</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>For newly published evidence that Countess Ida was a member of the Tony family, see Morris, ''The Bigod Earls of Norfolk in the 13th century'' (2005); 2, who cites a royal inquest dated 1275, in which jurors affirmed that Earl Roger le Bigod had received the manors of Acler, Halvergate, and South Walsham, Norfolk from King Henry II, in marriage with his wife, Ida de Tony (see Rotuli Hundredprum 1 (1812); 504, 537". To which he added : "Assuming that this has been appropriately extracted, this would seem to be strong evidence that Ida did in fact belong to this family. Her exact placement remains to be documented." The credit question centers around discovery of evidence that 'Countess Ida', mother of William Longespee, is identical to Ida, wife of Roger Bigod.  Ray Phar discovered the evidence that William Longespee was "brother" of a Bigod. The original document had been published in the 19th century, but the author did not address the significance - he just published the list of names. The information was lost to posterity until Ray found it and published a paper demonstrating exactly what this proved. In a post a couple of weeks ago, Richardson gave credit to the original (clueless) editor, and completely ignored the contribution of Ray Phar.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>For newly published evidence that Countess Ida was a member of the Tony family, see Morris, ''The Bigod Earls of Norfolk in the 13th century'' (2005); 2, who cites a royal inquest dated 1275, in which jurors affirmed that Earl Roger le Bigod had received the manors of Acler, Halvergate, and South Walsham, Norfolk from King Henry II, in marriage with his wife, Ida de Tony (see Rotuli Hundredprum 1 (1812); 504, 537". To which he added : "Assuming that this has been appropriately extracted, this would seem to be strong evidence that Ida did in fact belong to this family. Her exact placement remains to be documented." The credit question centers around discovery of evidence that 'Countess Ida', mother of William Longespee, is identical to Ida, wife of Roger Bigod.  Ray Phar discovered the evidence that William Longespee was "brother" of a Bigod. The original document had been published in the 19th century, but the author did not address the significance - he just published the list of names. The information was lost to posterity until Ray found it and published a paper demonstrating exactly what this proved. In a post a couple of weeks ago, Richardson gave credit to the original (clueless) editor, and completely ignored the contribution of Ray Phar.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>5<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">.</del>Don Stone asked (17 October 2007): "What is the exact wording of this reference to Robert, brother of John Botetourt? If no surname is given, it occurs to me that it might be a Robert de Saham, (half) brother of John Botetourt, since John is elsewhere specified as a brother of William de Saham."</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Question </ins>5<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Don Stone asked (17 October 2007): "What is the exact wording of this reference to Robert, brother of John Botetourt? If no surname is given, it occurs to me that it might be a Robert de Saham, (half) brother of John Botetourt, since John is elsewhere specified as a brother of William de Saham."</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>6<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">.</del>Leo van de Pas asked (29 October 2007) whether Richardson could tell how many times on gen-med it has been said that it is against the rules to offer professional services or to offer wares. It was wondered whether Richardson just did what suited him, as with crossposting of messages.  On 29 October 2007, Richardson sent a message : "C.P. Addition: Marriage date of Hugh le Despenser & Isabel de Beauchamp". This message, sent to soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval, alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty and the gen-medieval mailing list, contained the following passage:  "For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World colonists that descend from Sir Hugh le Despencer and his wife, Isabel de Beauchamp. For the connecting links down to the indivudual colonists, please see my book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005), which is available for purchase directly through me."</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Question </ins>6<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>7<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">.</del>Douglas Richardson (29 October 2007): "My research indicates that the Fitzalan family dropped the surname Fitzalan, in favor of Arundel about 1313. Thereafter all members of the family were known exclusively as Arundel (or de Arundel)." Will Johnson (30 October 2007): "But you didn't mention that among historians, you appear to be singularly alone in this theory. Isn't that a bit odd?" Leo van de Pas (31 October 2007) in ''The Complete Peerage'', Volume I 249, we find Thomas (FitzAlan otherwise Arundell otherwise Mautravers) Earl of Arundel. On page 250 we find the last two Earls of Arundel, both with the name Fitzalan. Also CP XIV does not correct any of the surnames mentioned. Vance Mead (5 November 2007) : "The visitations of Kent is on-line. On page 217 you can see the pedigree of Browne. It says that Sir Thomas Browne married Ellyn the daughter and co-heir of "Sir Thomas FitzAlan kt". You can also search the PRO catalogue or A2A and find several references to Thomas Fitzalan during the 15th century."</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Leo van de Pas asked (29 October 2007) whether Richardson could tell how many times on gen-med it has been said that it is against the rules to offer professional services or to offer wares. It was wondered whether Richardson just did what suited him, as with crossposting of messages.  On 29 October 2007, Richardson sent a message : "C.P. Addition: Marriage date of Hugh le Despenser & Isabel de Beauchamp". This message, sent to soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval, alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty and the gen-medieval mailing list, contained the following passage:  "For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World colonists that descend from Sir Hugh le Despencer and his wife, Isabel de Beauchamp. For the connecting links down to the indivudual colonists, please see my book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005), which is available for purchase directly through me."</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>8<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">.</del>Will Johnson points out (1 November 2007) how Douglas Richardson in his Plantagenet Ancestry, Page 302 recorded :  "15.Anne (or Agnes) Gascoigne married Thomas Fairfax (will dated 1520 proved 1521), son and heir of Thomas Fairfax, Master of the Horse to King Edward VI...", and that this was impossible (as Edward VI wasn't born until 1537). To this Leo van de Pas added : "Dear Will, Could this be a simple typo? The son was born about 1476 and it is his father who was Master of the Horse. Could it be that Edward IV (king 1461-1470 1471-1483) who was meant?"</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Question </ins>7<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Douglas Richardson (29 October 2007): "My research indicates that the Fitzalan family dropped the surname Fitzalan, in favor of Arundel about 1313. Thereafter all members of the family were known exclusively as Arundel (or de Arundel)." Will Johnson (30 October 2007): "But you didn't mention that among historians, you appear to be singularly alone in this theory. Isn't that a bit odd?" Leo van de Pas (31 October 2007) in ''The Complete Peerage'', Volume I 249, we find Thomas (FitzAlan otherwise Arundell otherwise Mautravers) Earl of Arundel. On page 250 we find the last two Earls of Arundel, both with the name Fitzalan. Also CP XIV does not correct any of the surnames mentioned. Vance Mead (5 November 2007) : "The visitations of Kent is on-line. On page 217 you can see the pedigree of Browne. It says that Sir Thomas Browne married Ellyn the daughter and co-heir of "Sir Thomas FitzAlan kt". You can also search the PRO catalogue or A2A and find several references to Thomas Fitzalan during the 15th century."</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>9<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">.</del>Will Johnson (2 November 2007) adds : "A further correction on the death date of Sir Henry Curwen : Plantagenet Ancestry page 302 generation 17, "Sir Henry Curwen died about 1553". However this from A2A showing Henry was yet living 18 April 1588: "FILE (no title) - ref. ID Cu/4/29 - date: 18 April 1588 (from Scrope and Content) Quitclaim by Nicholas Curwen of Stainburne esqr. to Sir Henry Curwen of Wirkington, his father, of all claims on his father's estate."</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Question </ins>8<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>10<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">.</del>John Briggs (11 November 2007) asked: "As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure that the King himself was sitting on it?" At first Richardson replied: "Yes, I'm quite sure. The published account twice states that John Sparrowhawk was brought 'before the king.'" When told Richardson had misrepresented the situation, he removed his original reply from the Google archives, re-wrote his reply, incorporating information given to him, re-sent it to gen-med pretending that this was what his opinion had been, without acknowledging he had been wrong in the first place, nor acknowledging the person who had put him straight. When his deception was revealed, he abused one of the people who had revealed his action.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Will Johnson points out (1 November 2007) how Douglas Richardson in his Plantagenet Ancestry, Page 302 recorded :  "15.Anne (or Agnes) Gascoigne married Thomas Fairfax (will dated 1520 proved 1521), son and heir of Thomas Fairfax, Master of the Horse to King Edward VI...", and that this was impossible (as Edward VI wasn't born until 1537). To this Leo van de Pas added : "Dear Will, Could this be a simple typo? The son was born about 1476 and it is his father who was Master of the Horse. Could it be that Edward IV (king 1461-1470 1471-1483) who was meant?"</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>11<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">.</del>Robert O'Connor (14 November 2007) : "I note that Douglas Richardson in 'Magna Carta Ancestry' at page 448 refers to the marriage of Isabel de Huntingfield and James de Paunton (died before 1279) as being childless. The various references to this couple at VCH Rutland II, pp 182-8 & VCH Northants, pp 249-52 suggest that they indeed had issue, a son Philip de Paunton who succeeded to his father's manor of Glaston, Rutland and Grendon, Northants. Perhaps James de Paunton had a prior marriage to that with Isabel de Huntingfield and it was from this unknown marriage that the son Philip descended? Can Douglas yield any light on this question? Many thanks, Robert O'Connor."</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Question </ins>9<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Will Johnson (2 November 2007) adds : "A further correction on the death date of Sir Henry Curwen : Plantagenet Ancestry page 302 generation 17, "Sir Henry Curwen died about 1553". However this from A2A showing Henry was yet living 18 April 1588: "FILE (no title) - ref. ID Cu/4/29 - date: 18 April 1588 (from Scrope and Content) Quitclaim by Nicholas Curwen of Stainburne esqr. to Sir Henry Curwen of Wirkington, his father, of all claims on his father's estate."</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Question </ins>10<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>John Briggs (11 November 2007) asked: "As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure that the King himself was sitting on it?" At first Richardson replied: "Yes, I'm quite sure. The published account twice states that John Sparrowhawk was brought 'before the king.'" When told Richardson had misrepresented the situation, he removed his original reply from the Google archives, re-wrote his reply, incorporating information given to him, re-sent it to gen-med pretending that this was what his opinion had been, without acknowledging he had been wrong in the first place, nor acknowledging the person who had put him straight. When his deception was revealed, he abused one of the people who had revealed his action.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Question </ins>11<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Robert O'Connor (14 November 2007) : "I note that Douglas Richardson in 'Magna Carta Ancestry' at page 448 refers to the marriage of Isabel de Huntingfield and James de Paunton (died before 1279) as being childless. The various references to this couple at VCH Rutland II, pp 182-8 & VCH Northants, pp 249-52 suggest that they indeed had issue, a son Philip de Paunton who succeeded to his father's manor of Glaston, Rutland and Grendon, Northants. Perhaps James de Paunton had a prior marriage to that with Isabel de Huntingfield and it was from this unknown marriage that the son Philip descended? Can Douglas yield any light on this question? Many thanks, Robert O'Connor."</div></td></tr>
</table>Wjhonsonhttp://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php?title=Douglas_Richardson,_awaiting_answers&diff=12188&oldid=prevWjhonson: copyedit2008-01-30T22:43:40Z<p>copyedit</p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 22:43, 30 January 2008</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>A page of questions that Douglas Richardson has yet to answer.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins>A page of questions that Douglas Richardson has yet to answer.<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>People who make public statements, when questioned usually will explain, justify or withdraw their original statement. Sadly, not so Douglas Richardson.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>People who make public statements, when questioned usually will explain, justify or withdraw their original statement. Sadly, not so Douglas Richardson. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </ins>For several years Douglas Richardson has placed himself on a pedestal of superior knowledge of medieval genealogy and medieval Latin. This places responsibility on Richardson, the responsibility of being beyond question, as his reputation as a professional genealogist stands or falls with his actions. Too often he has ignored questions or remarks.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>For several years Douglas Richardson has placed himself on a pedestal of superior knowledge of medieval genealogy and medieval Latin. This places responsibility on Richardson, the responsibility of being beyond question, as his reputation as a professional genealogist stands or falls with his actions. Too often he has ignored questions or remarks.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>He has stated that he thinks people assessing Gen-Med "expect him to teach them". However not clearing up questions he has caused, can only create havoc and more questions. When can he be relied upon to provide acceptable information? Most of the time he does, but as a trained historian and genealogist he owes his "pedestal position" that he explains, justifies or withdraws his statements when questioned. Silence should not be an option for him.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>He has stated that he thinks people assessing Gen-Med "expect him to teach them". However not clearing up questions he has caused, can only create havoc and more questions. When can he be relied upon to provide acceptable information? Most of the time he does, but as a trained historian and genealogist he owes his "pedestal position" that he explains, justifies or withdraws his statements when questioned. Silence should not be an option for him.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>It is unproductive to keep asking the same questions on Gen-Med, therefore it seems better to create a collection of these questions to help Douglas Richardson remember what the outstanding questions, pending his answers, are. If we go to the archives of Gen-Med, no doubt, more unanswered questions can be found.   </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>It is unproductive to keep asking the same questions on Gen-Med, therefore it seems better to create a collection of these questions to help Douglas Richardson remember what the outstanding questions, pending his answers, are. If we go to the archives of Gen-Med, no doubt, more unanswered questions can be found.   </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>1.As a supporter of crossposting, he has been asked how or if it has benefitted Gen-Med, can he advise what are the positive results. And does he still support it?</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>1.As a supporter of crossposting, he has been asked how or if it has benefitted Gen-Med, can he advise what are the positive results. And does he still support it?</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>2.He has stated that "Countess" was a first name used in medieval times. He has been asked to supply just one sample in either England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>2.He has stated that "Countess" was a first name used in medieval times. He has been asked to supply just one sample in either England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>3.He proclaimed that Edward III had at least one son by Alice Perrers, John de Sotheray. Since then it has been noted that Alice Perrers may not even be the mother, let alone Edward III the father.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>3.He proclaimed that Edward III had at least one son by Alice Perrers, John de Sotheray. Since then it has been noted that Alice Perrers may not even be the mother, let alone Edward III the father.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>4.He has been asked for the proof that Ida was Ida de Tosny, and who actually made that discovery.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>4.He has been asked for the proof that Ida was Ida de Tosny, and who actually made that discovery. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </ins>This has been answered by Todd Farmerie "Mr. Richardson wrote:</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===</del>This has been answered by Todd Farmerie "Mr. Richardson wrote:</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>For newly published evidence that Countess Ida was a member of the Tony family, see Morris<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">, ''</ins>The Bigod Earls of Norfolk in the 13th century<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'' </ins>(2005); 2, who cites a royal inquest dated 1275, in which jurors affirmed that Earl Roger le Bigod had received the manors of Acler, Halvergate, and South Walsham, Norfolk from King Henry II, in marriage with his wife, Ida de Tony (see Rotuli Hundredprum 1 (1812); 504, 537"<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. </ins>To which he added : <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">"</ins>Assuming that this has been appropriately extracted, this would seem to be strong evidence that Ida did in fact belong to this family. Her exact placement remains to be documented.<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">" </ins>The credit question centers around discovery of evidence that 'Countess Ida', mother of William Longespee, is identical to Ida, wife of Roger Bigod. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </ins>Ray Phar discovered the evidence that William Longespee was "brother" of a Bigod. The original document had been published in the 19th century, but the author did not address the significance - he just published the list of names. The information was lost to posterity until Ray found it and published a paper demonstrating exactly what this proved. In a post a couple of weeks ago, Richardson gave credit to the original (clueless) editor, and completely ignored the contribution of Ray Phar.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>For newly published evidence that Countess Ida was a member of the Tony family, see Morris The Bigod Earls of Norfolk in the 13th century (2005); 2, who cites a royal inquest dated 1275, in which jurors affirmed that Earl Roger le Bigod had received the manors of Acler, Halvergate, and South Walsham, Norfolk from King Henry II, in marriage with his wife, Ida de Tony (see Rotuli Hundredprum 1 (1812); 504, 537" To which he added : Assuming that this has been appropriately extracted, this would seem to be strong evidence that Ida did in fact belong to this family. Her exact placement remains to be documented. The credit question centers around discovery of evidence that 'Countess Ida', mother of William Longespee, is identical to Ida, wife of Roger Bigod.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Ray Phar discovered the evidence that William Longespee was "brother" of a Bigod. The original document had been published in the 19th century, but the author did not address the significance - he just published the list of names. The information was lost to posterity until Ray found it and published a paper demonstrating exactly what this proved. In a post a couple of weeks ago, Richardson gave credit to the original (clueless) editor, and completely ignored the contribution of Ray Phar.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>5.Don Stone asked (17 October 2007): "What is the exact wording of this reference to Robert, brother of John Botetourt? If no surname is given, it occurs to me that it might be a Robert de Saham, (half) brother of John Botetourt, since John is elsewhere specified as a brother of William de Saham."</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>5.Don Stone asked (17 October 2007): "What is the exact wording of this reference to Robert, brother of John Botetourt? If no surname is given, it occurs to me that it might be a Robert de Saham, (half) brother of John Botetourt, since John is elsewhere specified as a brother of William de Saham."</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>6.Leo van de Pas asked (29 October 2007) whether Richardson could tell how many times on gen-med it has been said that it is against the rules to offer professional services or to offer wares. It was wondered whether Richardson just did what suited him, as with crossposting of messages.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>6.Leo van de Pas asked (29 October 2007) whether Richardson could tell how many times on gen-med it has been said that it is against the rules to offer professional services or to offer wares. It was wondered whether Richardson just did what suited him, as with crossposting of messages. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </ins>On 29 October 2007, Richardson sent a message : <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">"</ins>C.P. Addition: Marriage date of Hugh le Despenser & Isabel de Beauchamp<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">"</ins>. This message, sent to soc.genealogy.medieval<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">, </ins>soc.history.medieval<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">, </ins>alt.history.british<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">, </ins>alt.talk.royalty and <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the </ins>gen-medieval <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">mailing list</ins>, contained the following passage<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">:  </ins>"For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World colonists that descend from Sir Hugh le Despencer and his wife, Isabel de Beauchamp. For the connecting links down to the indivudual colonists, please see my book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005), which is available for purchase directly through me."</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>On 29 October 2007, Richardson sent a message : C.P. Addition: Marriage date of Hugh le Despenser & Isabel de Beauchamp. This message, sent to soc.genealogy.medieval soc.history.medieval <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>alt.history.british<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">.</del>alt.talk.royalty and gen-medieval, contained the following passage</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>"For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World colonists that descend from Sir Hugh le Despencer and his wife, Isabel de Beauchamp. For the connecting links down to the indivudual colonists, please see my book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005), which is available for purchase directly through me."</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>7.Douglas Richardson (29 October 2007): "My research indicates that the Fitzalan family dropped the surname Fitzalan, in favor of Arundel about 1313. Thereafter all members of the family were known exclusively as Arundel (or de Arundel)." Will Johnson (30 October 2007): "But you didn't mention that among historians, you appear to be singularly alone in this theory. Isn't that a bit odd?<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">" </ins>Leo van de Pas (31 October 2007) <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">in ''The </ins>Complete Peerage<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'', </ins>Volume I 249, we find Thomas (FitzAlan otherwise Arundell otherwise Mautravers) Earl of Arundel. On page 250 we find the last two Earls of Arundel, both with the name Fitzalan. Also CP XIV does not correct any of the surnames mentioned. Vance Mead (5 November 2007) <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">: "</ins>The visitations of Kent is on<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-</ins>line. On page 217 you can see the pedigree of Browne. It says that Sir Thomas Browne married Ellyn the daughter and co-heir of "Sir Thomas FitzAlan kt". You can also search the PRO catalogue or A2A and find several references to Thomas Fitzalan during the 15th century.<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">"</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>7.Douglas Richardson (29 October 2007): "My research indicates that the Fitzalan family dropped the surname Fitzalan, in favor of Arundel about 1313. Thereafter all members of the family were known exclusively as Arundel (or de Arundel)." Will Johnson (30 October 2007): "But you didn't mention that among historians, you appear to be singularly alone in this theory. Isn't that a bit odd?</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>8.Will Johnson points out (1 November 2007) how Douglas Richardson in his Plantagenet Ancestry, Page 302 recorded : <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> "</ins>15.Anne (or Agnes) Gascoigne married Thomas Fairfax (will dated 1520 proved 1521), son and heir of Thomas Fairfax, Master of the Horse to King Edward VI<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">..."</ins>, and that this was impossible (as Edward VI wasn't born until 1537). To this Leo van de Pas added : <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">"</ins>Dear Will, Could this be a simple typo? The son was born about 1476 and it is his father who was Master of the Horse. Could it be that Edward IV (king 1461-1470 1471-1483) who was meant?<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">"</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Leo van de Pas (31 October 2007) <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">In teh </del>Complete Peerage Volume I 249, we find Thomas (FitzAlan otherwise Arundell otherwise Mautravers) Earl of Arundel. On page 250 we find the last two Earls of Arundel, both with the name Fitzalan. Also CP XIV does not correct any of the surnames mentioned.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>Vance Mead (5 November 2007) The visitations of Kent is on line. On page 217 you can see the pedigree of Browne. It says that Sir Thomas Browne married Ellyn the daughter and co-heir of "Sir Thomas FitzAlan kt". You can also search the PRO catalogue or A2A and find several references to Thomas Fitzalan during the 15th century. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>9.Will Johnson (2 November 2007) adds : <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">"</ins>A further correction on the death date of Sir Henry Curwen : Plantagenet Ancestry page 302 generation 17, "Sir Henry Curwen died about 1553". However this from A2A showing Henry was yet living 18 April 1588: "FILE (no title) - ref. ID Cu/4/29 - date: 18 April 1588 (from Scrope and Content) Quitclaim by Nicholas Curwen of Stainburne esqr. to Sir Henry Curwen of Wirkington, his father, of all claims on his father's estate."</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>8.Will Johnson points out (1 November 2007) how Douglas Richardson in his Plantagenet Ancestry, Page 302 recorded :</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>10.John Briggs (11 November 2007) asked: "As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure that the King himself was sitting on it?" At first Richardson replied: "Yes, I'm quite sure. The published account twice states that John Sparrowhawk was brought <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'</ins>before the king.<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'</ins>" When told Richardson had misrepresented the situation, he removed his original reply from the Google archives, re-wrote his reply, incorporating information given to him, re-<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">sent </ins>it to gen-med pretending that this was what his opinion <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">had been</ins>, without acknowledging he had been wrong in the first place, nor <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">acknowledging </ins>the person who had put <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">him </ins>straight. When his deception was revealed, he abused one of the people <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">who </ins>had revealed his action.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>15.Anne (or Agnes) Gascoigne married Thomas Fairfax (will dated 1520 proved 1521), son and heir of Thomas Fairfax, Master of the Horse to King Edward VI, and that this was impossible (as Edward VI wasn't born until 1537). To this Leo van de Pas added : Dear Will, Could this be a simple typo? The son was born about 1476 and it is his father who was Master of the Horse. Could it be that Edward IV (king 1461-1470 1471-1483) who was meant?</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">-----</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>11.Robert O'Connor (14 November 2007) <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">: </ins>"I note that Douglas Richardson in 'Magna Carta Ancestry' at page 448 refers to the marriage of Isabel de Huntingfield and James de Paunton (<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">died </ins>before 1279) as being childless. The various references <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">to </ins>this couple at VCH Rutland II, pp 182-8 & VCH Northants, pp 249-52 suggest that they indeed had issue, a son Philip de Paunton who succeeded to his father's manor of Glaston, Rutland and Grendon, Northants. Perhaps James de Paunton had a prior marriage to that with Isabel de Huntingfield and it was from this unknown marriage that the son Philip descended? Can Douglas yield any light on this question? Many thanks, Robert O'Connor.<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">"</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>9.Will Johnson (2 November 2007) adds : A further correction on the death date of Sir Henry Curwen : Plantagenet Ancestry page 302 generation 17,</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>"Sir Henry Curwen died about 1553". However this from A2A showing Henry was yet living 18 April 1588: "FILE (no title) - ref. ID Cu/4/29 - date: 18 April 1588 (from Scrope and Content) Quitclaim by Nicholas Curwen of Stainburne esqr. to Sir Henry Curwen of Wirkington, his father, of all claims on his father's estate."</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>10.John Briggs (11 November 2007) asked: "As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure that the King himself was sitting on it?" At first Richardson replied: "Yes, I'm quite sure. The published account twice states that John Sparrowhawk was brought <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">"</del>before the king."</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>When told Richardson had misrepresented the situation, he removed his original reply from the Google archives, re-wrote his reply, incorporating information given to him, re-<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">send </del>it to gen-med pretending that this was what his opinion <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">was</del>, without acknowledging he had been wrong in the first place, nor <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">acknowledged </del>the person who had put <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">his </del>straight. When his deception was revealed, he abused one of the people <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">what </del>had revealed his action.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>11.Robert O'Connor (14 November 2007)" I note that Douglas Richardson in 'Magna Carta Ancestry' at page 448 refers to the marriage of Isabel de Huntingfield and James de Paunton (<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Died </del>before 1279) as being childless.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>The various references <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">tgo </del>this couple at VCH Rutland II, pp 182-8 & VCH Northants, pp 249-52 suggest that they indeed had issue, a son Philip de Paunton who succeeded to his father's manor of Glaston, Rutland and Grendon, Northants. Perhaps James de Paunton had a prior marriage to that with Isabel de Huntingfield and it was from this unknown marriage that the son Philip descended? Can Douglas yield any light on this question? Many thanks, Robert O'Connor.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr>
</table>Wjhonsonhttp://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php?title=Douglas_Richardson,_awaiting_answers&diff=10552&oldid=prev202.78.39.167 at 09:32, 15 November 20072007-11-15T09:32:01Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 09:32, 15 November 2007</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 38:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 38:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>10.John Briggs (11 November 2007) asked: "As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure that the King himself was sitting on it?" At first Richardson replied: "Yes, I'm quite sure. The published account twice states that John Sparrowhawk was brought "before the king."</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>10.John Briggs (11 November 2007) asked: "As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure that the King himself was sitting on it?" At first Richardson replied: "Yes, I'm quite sure. The published account twice states that John Sparrowhawk was brought "before the king."</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>When told Richardson had misrepresented the situation, he removed his original reply from the Google archives, re-wrote his reply, incorporating information given to him, re-send it to gen-med pretending that this was what his opinion was, without acknowledging he had been wrong in the first place, nor acknowledged the person who had put his straight. When his deception was revealed, he abused one of the people what had revealed his action.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>When told Richardson had misrepresented the situation, he removed his original reply from the Google archives, re-wrote his reply, incorporating information given to him, re-send it to gen-med pretending that this was what his opinion was, without acknowledging he had been wrong in the first place, nor acknowledged the person who had put his straight. When his deception was revealed, he abused one of the people what had revealed his action.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">11.Robert O'Connor (14 November 2007)" I note that Douglas Richardson in 'Magna Carta Ancestry' at page 448 refers to the marriage of Isabel de Huntingfield and James de Paunton (Died before 1279) as being childless.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">The various references tgo this couple at VCH Rutland II, pp 182-8 & VCH Northants, pp 249-52 suggest that they indeed had issue, a son Philip de Paunton who succeeded to his father's manor of Glaston, Rutland and Grendon, Northants. Perhaps James de Paunton had a prior marriage to that with Isabel de Huntingfield and it was from this unknown marriage that the son Philip descended? Can Douglas yield any light on this question? Many thanks, Robert O'Connor.</ins></div></td></tr>
</table>202.78.39.167http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php?title=Douglas_Richardson,_awaiting_answers&diff=10475&oldid=prev202.78.39.25 at 23:57, 12 November 20072007-11-12T23:57:44Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 23:57, 12 November 2007</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 35:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 35:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>9.Will Johnson (2 November 2007) adds : A further correction on the death date of Sir Henry Curwen : Plantagenet Ancestry page 302 generation 17,</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>9.Will Johnson (2 November 2007) adds : A further correction on the death date of Sir Henry Curwen : Plantagenet Ancestry page 302 generation 17,</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>"Sir Henry Curwen died about 1553". However this from A2A showing Henry was yet living 18 April 1588: "FILE (no title) - ref. ID Cu/4/29 - date: 18 April 1588 (from Scrope and Content) Quitclaim by Nicholas Curwen of Stainburne esqr. to Sir Henry Curwen of Wirkington, his father, of all claims on his father's estate."</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>"Sir Henry Curwen died about 1553". However this from A2A showing Henry was yet living 18 April 1588: "FILE (no title) - ref. ID Cu/4/29 - date: 18 April 1588 (from Scrope and Content) Quitclaim by Nicholas Curwen of Stainburne esqr. to Sir Henry Curwen of Wirkington, his father, of all claims on his father's estate."</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">10.John Briggs (11 November 2007) asked: "As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure that the King himself was sitting on it?" At first Richardson replied: "Yes, I'm quite sure. The published account twice states that John Sparrowhawk was brought "before the king."</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">When told Richardson had misrepresented the situation, he removed his original reply from the Google archives, re-wrote his reply, incorporating information given to him, re-send it to gen-med pretending that this was what his opinion was, without acknowledging he had been wrong in the first place, nor acknowledged the person who had put his straight. When his deception was revealed, he abused one of the people what had revealed his action.</ins></div></td></tr>
</table>202.78.39.25http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php?title=Douglas_Richardson,_awaiting_answers&diff=10260&oldid=prev202.78.39.75 at 20:35, 4 November 20072007-11-04T20:35:43Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 20:35, 4 November 2007</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 27:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 27:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>7.Douglas Richardson (29 October 2007): "My research indicates that the Fitzalan family dropped the surname Fitzalan, in favor of Arundel about 1313. Thereafter all members of the family were known exclusively as Arundel (or de Arundel)." Will Johnson (30 October 2007): "But you didn't mention that among historians, you appear to be singularly alone in this theory. Isn't that a bit odd?</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>7.Douglas Richardson (29 October 2007): "My research indicates that the Fitzalan family dropped the surname Fitzalan, in favor of Arundel about 1313. Thereafter all members of the family were known exclusively as Arundel (or de Arundel)." Will Johnson (30 October 2007): "But you didn't mention that among historians, you appear to be singularly alone in this theory. Isn't that a bit odd?</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Leo van de Pas (31 October 2007) In teh Complete Peerage Volume I 249, we find Thomas (FitzAlan otherwise Arundell otherwise Mautravers) Earl of Arundel. On page 250 we find the last two Earls of Arundel, both with the name Fitzalan. Also CP XIV does not correct any of the surnames mentioned.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Vance Mead (5 November 2007) The visitations of Kent is on line. On page 217 you can see the pedigree of Browne. It says that Sir Thomas Browne married Ellyn the daughter and co-heir of "Sir Thomas FitzAlan kt". You can also search the PRO catalogue or A2A and find several references to Thomas Fitzalan during the 15th century.  </ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>8.Will Johnson points out (1 November 2007) how Douglas Richardson in his Plantagenet Ancestry, Page 302 recorded :</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>8.Will Johnson points out (1 November 2007) how Douglas Richardson in his Plantagenet Ancestry, Page 302 recorded :</div></td></tr>
</table>202.78.39.75http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php?title=Douglas_Richardson,_awaiting_answers&diff=10215&oldid=prev202.78.39.73 at 22:47, 2 November 20072007-11-02T22:47:56Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 22:47, 2 November 2007</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 30:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 30:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>8.Will Johnson points out (1 November 2007) how Douglas Richardson in his Plantagenet Ancestry, Page 302 recorded :</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>8.Will Johnson points out (1 November 2007) how Douglas Richardson in his Plantagenet Ancestry, Page 302 recorded :</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>15.Anne (or Agnes) Gascoigne married Thomas Fairfax (will dated 1520 proved 1521), son and heir of Thomas Fairfax, Master of the Horse to King Edward VI, and that this was impossible (as Edward VI wasn't born until 1537). To this Leo van de Pas added : Dear Will, Could this be a simple typo? The son was born about 1476 and it is his father who was Master of the Horse. Could it be that Edward IV (king 1461-1470 1471-1483) who was meant?</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>15.Anne (or Agnes) Gascoigne married Thomas Fairfax (will dated 1520 proved 1521), son and heir of Thomas Fairfax, Master of the Horse to King Edward VI, and that this was impossible (as Edward VI wasn't born until 1537). To this Leo van de Pas added : Dear Will, Could this be a simple typo? The son was born about 1476 and it is his father who was Master of the Horse. Could it be that Edward IV (king 1461-1470 1471-1483) who was meant?</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">9.Will Johnson (2 November 2007) adds : A further correction on the death date of Sir Henry Curwen : Plantagenet Ancestry page 302 generation 17,</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">"Sir Henry Curwen died about 1553". However this from A2A showing Henry was yet living 18 April 1588: "FILE (no title) - ref. ID Cu/4/29 - date: 18 April 1588 (from Scrope and Content) Quitclaim by Nicholas Curwen of Stainburne esqr. to Sir Henry Curwen of Wirkington, his father, of all claims on his father's estate."</ins></div></td></tr>
</table>202.78.39.73http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php?title=Douglas_Richardson,_awaiting_answers&diff=10214&oldid=prev202.78.39.73 at 22:41, 2 November 20072007-11-02T22:41:16Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 22:41, 2 November 2007</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 27:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 27:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>7.Douglas Richardson (29 October 2007): "My research indicates that the Fitzalan family dropped the surname Fitzalan, in favor of Arundel about 1313. Thereafter all members of the family were known exclusively as Arundel (or de Arundel)." Will Johnson (30 October 2007): "But you didn't mention that among historians, you appear to be singularly alone in this theory. Isn't that a bit odd?</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>7.Douglas Richardson (29 October 2007): "My research indicates that the Fitzalan family dropped the surname Fitzalan, in favor of Arundel about 1313. Thereafter all members of the family were known exclusively as Arundel (or de Arundel)." Will Johnson (30 October 2007): "But you didn't mention that among historians, you appear to be singularly alone in this theory. Isn't that a bit odd?</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">8.Will Johnson points out (1 November 2007) how Douglas Richardson in his Plantagenet Ancestry, Page 302 recorded :</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">15.Anne (or Agnes) Gascoigne married Thomas Fairfax (will dated 1520 proved 1521), son and heir of Thomas Fairfax, Master of the Horse to King Edward VI, and that this was impossible (as Edward VI wasn't born until 1537). To this Leo van de Pas added : Dear Will, Could this be a simple typo? The son was born about 1476 and it is his father who was Master of the Horse. Could it be that Edward IV (king 1461-1470 1471-1483) who was meant?</ins></div></td></tr>
</table>202.78.39.73http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php?title=Douglas_Richardson,_awaiting_answers&diff=10114&oldid=prev202.78.39.205 at 10:55, 30 October 20072007-10-30T10:55:53Z<p></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 10:55, 30 October 2007</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 25:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 25:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>On 29 October 2007, Richardson sent a message : C.P. Addition: Marriage date of Hugh le Despenser & Isabel de Beauchamp. This message, sent to soc.genealogy.medieval soc.history.medieval  alt.history.british.alt.talk.royalty and gen-medieval, contained the following passage</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>On 29 October 2007, Richardson sent a message : C.P. Addition: Marriage date of Hugh le Despenser & Isabel de Beauchamp. This message, sent to soc.genealogy.medieval soc.history.medieval  alt.history.british.alt.talk.royalty and gen-medieval, contained the following passage</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>"For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World colonists that descend from Sir Hugh le Despencer and his wife, Isabel de Beauchamp. For the connecting links down to the indivudual colonists, please see my book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005), which is available for purchase directly through me."</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>"For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World colonists that descend from Sir Hugh le Despencer and his wife, Isabel de Beauchamp. For the connecting links down to the indivudual colonists, please see my book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005), which is available for purchase directly through me."</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">7.Douglas Richardson (29 October 2007): "My research indicates that the Fitzalan family dropped the surname Fitzalan, in favor of Arundel about 1313. Thereafter all members of the family were known exclusively as Arundel (or de Arundel)." Will Johnson (30 October 2007): "But you didn't mention that among historians, you appear to be singularly alone in this theory. Isn't that a bit odd?</ins></div></td></tr>
</table>202.78.39.205