Another interesting day
Another interesting day
2007-05-05 21:58:33
Essex Local History Day, at the University.
The first talk was JA-H's new evidence about Edward V from
Colchester, also a little of David Baldwin's theory about Richard of
Shrewsbury. I will not say two much at present about the Colchester
evidence in case the Bulletin publishes it soon!
The second talk was by Alison Rowlands, about two skeletons found in
St. Osyth (near Clacton) in 1921, supposed to be a pair of local
witches hanged in Chelmsford in 1582. Forensic evidence in this case
is also short. Alternatively, they may be two of three witches hanged
in 1645, some of five witches who died during imprisonment over this
time, murder victims or even pre-Christian burials. They were buried
north-south, outwith consecrated ground and twenty miles from
Chelmsford.
Here is the parallel. Journalists and amateur archeologists in 1920s
Essex, just like Charles II's men at the Tower in 1674, assumed the
skeletons to be those of Ursula Kemp and Elizabeth Bennett simply
because they expected them to be. We should all strive to avoid this.
Then I saw a piece in the Daily Mail's "Weekend" about people of
royal descent - a Witham lady descended from George IV and Maria
Fitzherbert; a cousin of Grace Kelly; a probable Marlborough
descendant. There was a list of prominent royal surnames that may be
clues, to which I would add Stafford, Hastings and Capell. However,
anyone surnamed Pole or Barrington who claims to be royal is probably
an impostor as these two MALE lines have both expired.
The first talk was JA-H's new evidence about Edward V from
Colchester, also a little of David Baldwin's theory about Richard of
Shrewsbury. I will not say two much at present about the Colchester
evidence in case the Bulletin publishes it soon!
The second talk was by Alison Rowlands, about two skeletons found in
St. Osyth (near Clacton) in 1921, supposed to be a pair of local
witches hanged in Chelmsford in 1582. Forensic evidence in this case
is also short. Alternatively, they may be two of three witches hanged
in 1645, some of five witches who died during imprisonment over this
time, murder victims or even pre-Christian burials. They were buried
north-south, outwith consecrated ground and twenty miles from
Chelmsford.
Here is the parallel. Journalists and amateur archeologists in 1920s
Essex, just like Charles II's men at the Tower in 1674, assumed the
skeletons to be those of Ursula Kemp and Elizabeth Bennett simply
because they expected them to be. We should all strive to avoid this.
Then I saw a piece in the Daily Mail's "Weekend" about people of
royal descent - a Witham lady descended from George IV and Maria
Fitzherbert; a cousin of Grace Kelly; a probable Marlborough
descendant. There was a list of prominent royal surnames that may be
clues, to which I would add Stafford, Hastings and Capell. However,
anyone surnamed Pole or Barrington who claims to be royal is probably
an impostor as these two MALE lines have both expired.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Another interesting day
2007-05-06 02:28:05
Regarding anyway called Pole or Barrington, maybe not impostors just deluded. Or maybe someone along the line took a female ancestor's name. It does happen.
Helen
Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
Essex Local History Day, at the University.
The first talk was JA-H's new evidence about Edward V from
Colchester, also a little of David Baldwin's theory about Richard of
Shrewsbury. I will not say two much at present about the Colchester
evidence in case the Bulletin publishes it soon!
The second talk was by Alison Rowlands, about two skeletons found in
St. Osyth (near Clacton) in 1921, supposed to be a pair of local
witches hanged in Chelmsford in 1582. Forensic evidence in this case
is also short. Alternatively, they may be two of three witches hanged
in 1645, some of five witches who died during imprisonment over this
time, murder victims or even pre-Christian burials. They were buried
north-south, outwith consecrated ground and twenty miles from
Chelmsford.
Here is the parallel. Journalists and amateur archeologists in 1920s
Essex, just like Charles II's men at the Tower in 1674, assumed the
skeletons to be those of Ursula Kemp and Elizabeth Bennett simply
because they expected them to be. We should all strive to avoid this.
Then I saw a piece in the Daily Mail's "Weekend" about people of
royal descent - a Witham lady descended from George IV and Maria
Fitzherbert; a cousin of Grace Kelly; a probable Marlborough
descendant. There was a list of prominent royal surnames that may be
clues, to which I would add Stafford, Hastings and Capell. However,
anyone surnamed Pole or Barrington who claims to be royal is probably
an impostor as these two MALE lines have both expired.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Helen
Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
Essex Local History Day, at the University.
The first talk was JA-H's new evidence about Edward V from
Colchester, also a little of David Baldwin's theory about Richard of
Shrewsbury. I will not say two much at present about the Colchester
evidence in case the Bulletin publishes it soon!
The second talk was by Alison Rowlands, about two skeletons found in
St. Osyth (near Clacton) in 1921, supposed to be a pair of local
witches hanged in Chelmsford in 1582. Forensic evidence in this case
is also short. Alternatively, they may be two of three witches hanged
in 1645, some of five witches who died during imprisonment over this
time, murder victims or even pre-Christian burials. They were buried
north-south, outwith consecrated ground and twenty miles from
Chelmsford.
Here is the parallel. Journalists and amateur archeologists in 1920s
Essex, just like Charles II's men at the Tower in 1674, assumed the
skeletons to be those of Ursula Kemp and Elizabeth Bennett simply
because they expected them to be. We should all strive to avoid this.
Then I saw a piece in the Daily Mail's "Weekend" about people of
royal descent - a Witham lady descended from George IV and Maria
Fitzherbert; a cousin of Grace Kelly; a probable Marlborough
descendant. There was a list of prominent royal surnames that may be
clues, to which I would add Stafford, Hastings and Capell. However,
anyone surnamed Pole or Barrington who claims to be royal is probably
an impostor as these two MALE lines have both expired.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Another interesting day
2007-05-06 10:59:19
--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@...> wrote:
>
> Regarding anyway called Pole or Barrington, maybe not impostors
just deluded. Or maybe someone along the line took a female
ancestor's name. It does happen.
>
> Helen
>
Yes, it does happen, one very good example being Michael, Earl of
Loudoun who lives in NSW. I cannot recall whether I posted my PP file
on that family but his surname of HASTINGS has passed through the
female line four times including his own mother and grandmother
(their elder brothers having been killed in the World Wars).
The most recent Pole descendant of Lady Margaret was killed in Rome
in 1619, so far as I know. The Barringtons of Hatfield Broadoak, into
whom Winifred Pole married, lost their male line in about 1831 and I
am in occasional e-contact with Tim Powys-Lybbe, their heir.
To augment my comparison of the 1674 Tower bones with the 1921 St.
Osyth discoveries, even Tanner and Wright in the thirties ASSUMED
that they had the "Princes", although age, gender and quantity are
unproved. The first St. Osyth skeleton was originally declared to be
MALE. It is large yet there is nothing in the trial records about the
defendants' sizes.
Of course, before the "long drop" was used some time later, the necks
may not have been broken by hanging. Very different from Mr.
Pierrepoint having a prisoner weighed and measuring his "drop length"
by inverse proportion plus six inches.
> Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> Essex Local History Day, at the University.
>
> The first talk was JA-H's new evidence about Edward V from
> Colchester, also a little of David Baldwin's theory about Richard
of
> Shrewsbury. I will not say two much at present about the Colchester
> evidence in case the Bulletin publishes it soon!
>
> The second talk was by Alison Rowlands, about two skeletons found
in
> St. Osyth (near Clacton) in 1921, supposed to be a pair of local
> witches hanged in Chelmsford in 1582. Forensic evidence in this
case
> is also short. Alternatively, they may be two of three witches
hanged
> in 1645, some of five witches who died during imprisonment over
this
> time, murder victims or even pre-Christian burials. They were
buried
> north-south, outwith consecrated ground and twenty miles from
> Chelmsford.
>
> Here is the parallel. Journalists and amateur archeologists in
1920s
> Essex, just like Charles II's men at the Tower in 1674, assumed the
> skeletons to be those of Ursula Kemp and Elizabeth Bennett simply
> because they expected them to be. We should all strive to avoid
this.
>
> Then I saw a piece in the Daily Mail's "Weekend" about people of
> royal descent - a Witham lady descended from George IV and Maria
> Fitzherbert; a cousin of Grace Kelly; a probable Marlborough
> descendant. There was a list of prominent royal surnames that may
be
> clues, to which I would add Stafford, Hastings and Capell. However,
> anyone surnamed Pole or Barrington who claims to be royal is
probably
> an impostor as these two MALE lines have both expired.
>
>
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
<sweethelly2003@...> wrote:
>
> Regarding anyway called Pole or Barrington, maybe not impostors
just deluded. Or maybe someone along the line took a female
ancestor's name. It does happen.
>
> Helen
>
Yes, it does happen, one very good example being Michael, Earl of
Loudoun who lives in NSW. I cannot recall whether I posted my PP file
on that family but his surname of HASTINGS has passed through the
female line four times including his own mother and grandmother
(their elder brothers having been killed in the World Wars).
The most recent Pole descendant of Lady Margaret was killed in Rome
in 1619, so far as I know. The Barringtons of Hatfield Broadoak, into
whom Winifred Pole married, lost their male line in about 1831 and I
am in occasional e-contact with Tim Powys-Lybbe, their heir.
To augment my comparison of the 1674 Tower bones with the 1921 St.
Osyth discoveries, even Tanner and Wright in the thirties ASSUMED
that they had the "Princes", although age, gender and quantity are
unproved. The first St. Osyth skeleton was originally declared to be
MALE. It is large yet there is nothing in the trial records about the
defendants' sizes.
Of course, before the "long drop" was used some time later, the necks
may not have been broken by hanging. Very different from Mr.
Pierrepoint having a prisoner weighed and measuring his "drop length"
by inverse proportion plus six inches.
> Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> Essex Local History Day, at the University.
>
> The first talk was JA-H's new evidence about Edward V from
> Colchester, also a little of David Baldwin's theory about Richard
of
> Shrewsbury. I will not say two much at present about the Colchester
> evidence in case the Bulletin publishes it soon!
>
> The second talk was by Alison Rowlands, about two skeletons found
in
> St. Osyth (near Clacton) in 1921, supposed to be a pair of local
> witches hanged in Chelmsford in 1582. Forensic evidence in this
case
> is also short. Alternatively, they may be two of three witches
hanged
> in 1645, some of five witches who died during imprisonment over
this
> time, murder victims or even pre-Christian burials. They were
buried
> north-south, outwith consecrated ground and twenty miles from
> Chelmsford.
>
> Here is the parallel. Journalists and amateur archeologists in
1920s
> Essex, just like Charles II's men at the Tower in 1674, assumed the
> skeletons to be those of Ursula Kemp and Elizabeth Bennett simply
> because they expected them to be. We should all strive to avoid
this.
>
> Then I saw a piece in the Daily Mail's "Weekend" about people of
> royal descent - a Witham lady descended from George IV and Maria
> Fitzherbert; a cousin of Grace Kelly; a probable Marlborough
> descendant. There was a list of prominent royal surnames that may
be
> clues, to which I would add Stafford, Hastings and Capell. However,
> anyone surnamed Pole or Barrington who claims to be royal is
probably
> an impostor as these two MALE lines have both expired.
>
>
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
Re: Another interesting day
2007-05-08 05:47:40
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
. However,
> anyone surnamed Pole or Barrington who claims to be royal is probably
> an impostor as these two MALE lines have both expired.
>
On the American quiz show Jeopardy! I once saw a contestant who claimed
to be a direct descendant of George Washington. I'm sure at least two
dozen people on the set could have pointed out that the Father of Our
Country was the father of no children. But everyone was kind enough to
remain silent.
Katy
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
. However,
> anyone surnamed Pole or Barrington who claims to be royal is probably
> an impostor as these two MALE lines have both expired.
>
On the American quiz show Jeopardy! I once saw a contestant who claimed
to be a direct descendant of George Washington. I'm sure at least two
dozen people on the set could have pointed out that the Father of Our
Country was the father of no children. But everyone was kind enough to
remain silent.
Katy
Re: Another interesting day
2007-05-08 10:36:05
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>
> . However,
> > anyone surnamed Pole or Barrington who claims to be royal is
probably
> > an impostor as these two MALE lines have both expired.
> >
>
>
> On the American quiz show Jeopardy! I once saw a contestant who
claimed
> to be a direct descendant of George Washington. I'm sure at least
two
> dozen people on the set could have pointed out that the Father of
Our
> Country was the father of no children. But everyone was kind
enough to
> remain silent.
>
> Katy
>
Abuse of the term "descendant" when "collateral descendant" is more
accurate is widespread. How many times have we screamed at the TV set
during a genealogy program - "No, she's Victoria's COUSIN" etc?
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>
> . However,
> > anyone surnamed Pole or Barrington who claims to be royal is
probably
> > an impostor as these two MALE lines have both expired.
> >
>
>
> On the American quiz show Jeopardy! I once saw a contestant who
claimed
> to be a direct descendant of George Washington. I'm sure at least
two
> dozen people on the set could have pointed out that the Father of
Our
> Country was the father of no children. But everyone was kind
enough to
> remain silent.
>
> Katy
>
Abuse of the term "descendant" when "collateral descendant" is more
accurate is widespread. How many times have we screamed at the TV set
during a genealogy program - "No, she's Victoria's COUSIN" etc?
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Another interesting day
2007-05-09 02:21:01
Perhaps the contestant was descended from Washington's step-children.
People do get confused.
Helen
Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>
> . However,
> > anyone surnamed Pole or Barrington who claims to be royal is
probably
> > an impostor as these two MALE lines have both expired.
> >
>
>
> On the American quiz show Jeopardy! I once saw a contestant who
claimed
> to be a direct descendant of George Washington. I'm sure at least
two
> dozen people on the set could have pointed out that the Father of
Our
> Country was the father of no children. But everyone was kind
enough to
> remain silent.
>
> Katy
>
Abuse of the term "descendant" when "collateral descendant" is more
accurate is widespread. How many times have we screamed at the TV set
during a genealogy program - "No, she's Victoria's COUSIN" etc?
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
People do get confused.
Helen
Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>
> . However,
> > anyone surnamed Pole or Barrington who claims to be royal is
probably
> > an impostor as these two MALE lines have both expired.
> >
>
>
> On the American quiz show Jeopardy! I once saw a contestant who
claimed
> to be a direct descendant of George Washington. I'm sure at least
two
> dozen people on the set could have pointed out that the Father of
Our
> Country was the father of no children. But everyone was kind
enough to
> remain silent.
>
> Katy
>
Abuse of the term "descendant" when "collateral descendant" is more
accurate is widespread. How many times have we screamed at the TV set
during a genealogy program - "No, she's Victoria's COUSIN" etc?
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Another interesting day
2007-05-09 21:31:04
Even though he had no children of his own. He did adopt Martha Dandridge
Custis's children. Robert E. Lee's father in law was one of the
grandchildren.
Le
----- Original Message -----
From: "Helen Rowe" <sweethelly2003@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Another interesting day
> Perhaps the contestant was descended from Washington's step-children.
>
> People do get confused.
>
> Helen
>
> Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > . However,
> > > anyone surnamed Pole or Barrington who claims to be royal is
> probably
> > > an impostor as these two MALE lines have both expired.
> > >
> >
> >
> > On the American quiz show Jeopardy! I once saw a contestant who
> claimed
> > to be a direct descendant of George Washington. I'm sure at least
> two
> > dozen people on the set could have pointed out that the Father of
> Our
> > Country was the father of no children. But everyone was kind
> enough to
> > remain silent.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> Abuse of the term "descendant" when "collateral descendant" is more
> accurate is widespread. How many times have we screamed at the TV set
> during a genealogy program - "No, she's Victoria's COUSIN" etc?
>
>
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Custis's children. Robert E. Lee's father in law was one of the
grandchildren.
Le
----- Original Message -----
From: "Helen Rowe" <sweethelly2003@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Another interesting day
> Perhaps the contestant was descended from Washington's step-children.
>
> People do get confused.
>
> Helen
>
> Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > . However,
> > > anyone surnamed Pole or Barrington who claims to be royal is
> probably
> > > an impostor as these two MALE lines have both expired.
> > >
> >
> >
> > On the American quiz show Jeopardy! I once saw a contestant who
> claimed
> > to be a direct descendant of George Washington. I'm sure at least
> two
> > dozen people on the set could have pointed out that the Father of
> Our
> > Country was the father of no children. But everyone was kind
> enough to
> > remain silent.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> Abuse of the term "descendant" when "collateral descendant" is more
> accurate is widespread. How many times have we screamed at the TV set
> during a genealogy program - "No, she's Victoria's COUSIN" etc?
>
>
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.