Discussion:
ROYAL BASTARDS LIVING TODAY?
(too old to reply)
miss p
2006-08-29 11:35:15 UTC
Permalink
I want to know if there are any people in the UK today who are of
descendants of the royal family by being a bastard etc. I am
particulary interested in finding 'normal' folk who believe they have
blue blood by some means or another but are not remotely 'royal' (ie
have no title etc). I know there's a chap in Scotland who claimed
recenlty he was of royal descent but he turned out to be somewhat
disillussioned! Also there is Robert Brown who claims to be from
princess Margaret, but it's quite hard to prove I think at this stage.
I appreciate all help on this one - it's like a needle in a haystack!
If anyone has ANY names past or present ( I can work back or forth) I
would really appreciate it?
Charani
2006-08-29 11:56:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss p
I want to know if there are any people in the UK today who are of
descendants of the royal family by being a bastard etc. I am
particulary interested in finding 'normal' folk who believe they have
blue blood by some means or another but are not remotely 'royal' (ie
have no title etc). I know there's a chap in Scotland who claimed
recenlty he was of royal descent but he turned out to be somewhat
disillussioned! Also there is Robert Brown who claims to be from
princess Margaret, but it's quite hard to prove I think at this stage.
I appreciate all help on this one - it's like a needle in a haystack!
If anyone has ANY names past or present ( I can work back or forth) I
would really appreciate it?
I believe you, or was it someone else, posted up this, or a near
identical question, a little while ago that was fully answered. It
was under the same heading so either looking through Google Groups or
the Rootsweb Archive for the list will give you your answer.

However, what Roy said last time, was that everyone in this country
(who is not a recent incomer) is a descendent of a Royal bastard.
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
Fenny
2006-08-29 11:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W soc.genealogy.britain,
miss p said ...
Post by miss p
I want to know if there are any people in the UK today who are of
descendants of the royal family by being a bastard etc. I am
particulary interested in finding 'normal' folk who believe they have
blue blood by some means or another but are not remotely 'royal' (ie
have no title etc). I know there's a chap in Scotland who claimed
recenlty he was of royal descent but he turned out to be somewhat
disillussioned! Also there is Robert Brown who claims to be from
princess Margaret, but it's quite hard to prove I think at this stage.
I appreciate all help on this one - it's like a needle in a haystack!
If anyone has ANY names past or present ( I can work back or forth) I
would really appreciate it?
Go back and read the thread you started at the beginning of August. I
don't think the discussion will likely to be any different 3 weeks later.

I think that the people you actually want to find are not likely to be
subscribed to a group like this. Those of us who are here are probably
not all that bothered about having royal blood.
--
Fenny

Giles: But that's the thrill of living on the Hellmouth! There's a
veritable cornucopia of, of fiends and devils and, and ghouls to engage.
Pardon me for finding the glass half full.
Roy Stockdill
2006-08-29 12:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss p
I want to know if there are any people in the UK today who are of
descendants of the royal family by being a bastard etc. I am
particulary interested in finding 'normal' folk who believe they have
blue blood by some means or another but are not remotely 'royal' (ie
have no title etc). I know there's a chap in Scotland who claimed
recenlty he was of royal descent but he turned out to be somewhat
disillussioned! Also there is Robert Brown who claims to be from
princess Margaret, but it's quite hard to prove I think at this stage.
I appreciate all help on this one - it's like a needle in a haystack!
If anyone has ANY names past or present ( I can work back or forth) I
would really appreciate it?>
This is one of the dafter queries I've seen in recent times and, in fact, I
dimly seem to recall having seen it before.

There are probably millions of people who are descended from royals,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, and who are just ordinary folk. How
many can prove it is another matter. I suspect from your e-mail address
you are involved with some TV company or other and looking to make a
programme. If so, why not say so?

--
Roy Stockdill
Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-29 17:19:20 UTC
Permalink
There are many Brits, millions of them, and Americans as well -- who are
DESCENDANTS of Bastards -- but NOT bastards THEMSELVES.

For Example:

Millions of folks are descendants of William de Longespee, Earl of
Salisbury, who was a bastard of King Henry II. William was born circa 1170
and died in 1226 and was a famous warrior and very competent fellow.

Presidents George Washington and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are both
descendants of William de Longespee.

Washington is a 16th great-grandson of William de Longespee, FDR is a 21st
great-grandson ---- and Queen Elizabeth II is a 22nd great-granddaughter.

Stockdill, _au contraire_, has the notable distinction of being a Real
Bastard, as he himself has told us ---- and that makes him a horse
[correction: a horse's arse] of an entirely different color.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Longespee,_3rd_Earl_of_Salisbury

The story of William de Longespee and the rat is a charming one --
delightfully British and outré.

Vide infra.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
But, if you'll forgive me for saying so...
No.

<remaining detritus and balderdash mercifully snipped>

DSH
celia
2006-08-29 18:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
There are many Brits, millions of them, and Americans as well -- who are
DESCENDANTS of Bastards -- but NOT bastards THEMSELVES.
Millions of folks are descendants of William de Longespee, Earl of
Salisbury, who was a bastard of King Henry II. William was born circa 1170
and died in 1226 and was a famous warrior and very competent fellow.
Presidents George Washington and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are both
descendants of William de Longespee.
Washington is a 16th great-grandson of William de Longespee, FDR is a 21st
great-grandson ---- and Queen Elizabeth II is a 22nd great-granddaughter.
Stockdill, _au contraire_, has the notable distinction of being a Real
Bastard, as he himself has told us ---- and that makes him a horse
[correction: a horse's arse] of an entirely different color.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Longespee,_3rd_Earl_of_Salisbury
The story of William de Longespee and the rat is a charming one --
delightfully British and outré.
Ten minutes ago a friend told me that she is illegitimate.
I can't see that it makes an iota of difference to who she
is or how I feel about her.
It's the 21st. c., the sins of the fathers are no longer visited upon
the children.

Celia
Paul C
2006-08-29 21:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by celia
Ten minutes ago a friend told me that she is illegitimate.
I can't see that it makes an iota of difference to who she
is or how I feel about her.
It's the 21st. c., the sins of the fathers are no longer visited upon
the children.
The only person who truly cares is D Spencer Hines.

Methinks he doth protest too much.
Fenny
2006-08-29 12:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W soc.genealogy.britain,
miss p said ...
Post by miss p
I appreciate all help on this one - it's like a needle in a haystack!
If anyone has ANY names past or present ( I can work back or forth) I
would really appreciate it?
I think it was on Time Team the other night that they said David Cameron
was somehow related to the royals. It makes you sorry for the Queen!

Have you asked Ant & Dec?
--
Fenny

Willow: Is there anything you don't know everything about?
Giles: Synchronized swimming. Complete mystery to me.
Don Aitken
2006-08-29 16:54:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fenny
Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W soc.genealogy.britain,
miss p said ...
Post by miss p
I appreciate all help on this one - it's like a needle in a haystack!
If anyone has ANY names past or present ( I can work back or forth) I
would really appreciate it?
I think it was on Time Team the other night that they said David Cameron
was somehow related to the royals. It makes you sorry for the Queen!
William IV
I
Lady Elizabeth FitzClarence m. William Hay, 18th Earl of Erroll
I
Lady Agnes Hay m. James Duff, 5th Earl of Fife
I
Lady Agnes Duff m. Alfred Cooper
I
Stephanie Cooper m Arthur Levitta
I
Edith Levita m. Ewen Cameron
I
Ian Cameron
I
David Cameron

The 5th Earl of Fife's son, the 1st Duke of Fife, married the Queen's
great-aunt, Louise, Princess Royal, so Cameron and the Queen are also
cousins by marriage.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Roy Stockdill
2006-08-29 12:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss p
I want to know if there are any people in the UK today who are of
descendants of the royal family by being a bastard etc. I am
particulary interested in finding 'normal' folk who believe they have
blue blood by some means or another but are not remotely 'royal' (ie
have no title etc). I know there's a chap in Scotland who claimed
recenlty he was of royal descent but he turned out to be somewhat
disillussioned! Also there is Robert Brown who claims to be from
princess Margaret, but it's quite hard to prove I think at this stage.
I appreciate all help on this one - it's like a needle in a haystack!
If anyone has ANY names past or present ( I can work back or forth) I
would really appreciate it?>
If it's of any interest to you, I can give you the names of a couple of
famous folks who are probably direct descendants of William the
Conqueror (who was a bastard) and thus of other monarchs, too, and
who don't have titles.

1) The jazz trumpeter and bandleader Humphrey Lyttelton
2) The actress Frances de la Tour

Both are of minor aristocratic stock and you can usually manage to tag
someone of this class onto the distant gt-gt-gt-gt-grandchild of some
monarch or other somewhere via a younger son who became a country
squire and married into trade. I looked briefly into their ancestry a while
ago and, without supplying all the proof, I think I'm probably right.

The following deceased persons are apparently known to descend from
Edward I, so you may well find they have living descendants who are
quite ordinary folks now.....

Virginia Woolf
George Orwell
Billy Butlin
Neville Chamberlain
Somerset Maugham
E M Forster
Fletcher Christian
Lawrence of Arabia
Vaughan Williams

You might also try following the descendants (who are probably legion)
of William IV by his long relationship with the actress Mrs Jordan. They
had 10 children and I expect some of the descendants of those are
ordinary folks by now.

But, if you'll forgive me for saying so, your whole query seems naïve to
us here. The fluidity of English society means that some families have
risen and some have declined and the simple mathematics of numbers
of relative population several centuries ago, compared with today,
means that there must be a few million descendants of royal bastards
around, most of whom probably aren't even aware of the fact. As Fenny
said, it's no big deal!

--
Roy Stockdill
Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
m***@yahoo.co.uk
2006-08-29 13:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
The following deceased persons are apparently known to descend from
Edward I, so you may well find they have living descendants who are
quite ordinary folks now.....
Virginia Woolf
George Orwell
Billy Butlin
Neville Chamberlain
Somerset Maugham
E M Forster
Fletcher Christian
Lawrence of Arabia
Vaughan Williams
Anthony Camp's selection, but Orwell and Christian (at least) also
descended from Edward III, and I wouldn't be surprised if several more
(if not all) of them did. Quite a few on that list actually have no
descendants- Woolf, Orwell, Forster and Lawrence spring to mind (Orwell
had an adopted son); don't know about the others, except Fletcher
Christian, who obviously has many intermarried descendants on Pitcairn
and Norfolk islands, and elsewhere.
Post by Roy Stockdill
You might also try following the descendants (who are probably
legion)
Post by Roy Stockdill
of William IV by his long relationship with the actress Mrs Jordan. They
had 10 children and I expect some of the descendants of those are
ordinary folks by now.
David Cameron does desperately want to be thought an ordinary bloke!

-Matthew
miss p
2006-08-29 14:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Hi Roy - thanks for this. You're right, I am indeed from a tv company
and giving my email address doesn't conceal what I am doing. However, I
simply plod along in developing ideas as to making programmes and this
is something that has really created an interest personally aswell for
me. My mum Cathy has been a member of this group for a while as she has
traced our own family back for years and obviously the interest has
been passed on.
I appreciate all your help - my mum says you're a man with an excellent
knowledge of all things genealogy based so I really appreciate your
feedback. And whilst it may seem naeve, I think it would still make an
interesting idea to have, for example, a bin man with a rich family
history going back to royalty. I also know we exist with many
descendants also from the royals and their illegitimates, but it is
still my mission to find some people in the uk living ordinary lives.
I am very aware of William IV and his busy offspring - sadly they all
seem to have titles however which is a bit of a brick wall again for
me. Thanks very much again - and I really appreciate any thoughts you
might have on this.

Katy
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by miss p
I want to know if there are any people in the UK today who are of
descendants of the royal family by being a bastard etc. I am
particulary interested in finding 'normal' folk who believe they have
blue blood by some means or another but are not remotely 'royal' (ie
have no title etc). I know there's a chap in Scotland who claimed
recenlty he was of royal descent but he turned out to be somewhat
disillussioned! Also there is Robert Brown who claims to be from
princess Margaret, but it's quite hard to prove I think at this stage.
I appreciate all help on this one - it's like a needle in a haystack!
If anyone has ANY names past or present ( I can work back or forth) I
would really appreciate it?>
If it's of any interest to you, I can give you the names of a couple of
famous folks who are probably direct descendants of William the
Conqueror (who was a bastard) and thus of other monarchs, too, and
who don't have titles.
1) The jazz trumpeter and bandleader Humphrey Lyttelton
2) The actress Frances de la Tour
Both are of minor aristocratic stock and you can usually manage to tag
someone of this class onto the distant gt-gt-gt-gt-grandchild of some
monarch or other somewhere via a younger son who became a country
squire and married into trade. I looked briefly into their ancestry a while
ago and, without supplying all the proof, I think I'm probably right.
The following deceased persons are apparently known to descend from
Edward I, so you may well find they have living descendants who are
quite ordinary folks now.....
Virginia Woolf
George Orwell
Billy Butlin
Neville Chamberlain
Somerset Maugham
E M Forster
Fletcher Christian
Lawrence of Arabia
Vaughan Williams
You might also try following the descendants (who are probably legion)
of William IV by his long relationship with the actress Mrs Jordan. They
had 10 children and I expect some of the descendants of those are
ordinary folks by now.
But, if you'll forgive me for saying so, your whole query seems naïve to
us here. The fluidity of English society means that some families have
risen and some have declined and the simple mathematics of numbers
of relative population several centuries ago, compared with today,
means that there must be a few million descendants of royal bastards
around, most of whom probably aren't even aware of the fact. As Fenny
said, it's no big deal!
--
Roy Stockdill
Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Fenny
2006-08-29 14:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W soc.genealogy.britain,
miss p said ...
Post by miss p
Hi Roy - thanks for this. You're right, I am indeed from a tv company
and giving my email address doesn't conceal what I am doing. However, I
simply plod along in developing ideas as to making programmes and this
is something that has really created an interest personally aswell for
me.
I really can't speak for the rest of the tv viewing population, but I
don't think it would appeal to me. But then, I really like The West Wing,
so you can't really put me down as a typical viewer. I can't see it being
any worse than pretty much anything else on UK television right now, so it
will probably get made and companies will pay for advertising while it's
on.
--
Fenny

Thought for the Day...
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
John Cartmell
2006-08-29 14:45:19 UTC
Permalink
And whilst it may seem naeve, I think it would still make an interesting
idea to have, for example, a bin man with a rich family history going back
to royalty.
The problem with asking on a group like this is that the 'interest' is of a
perfunctory type that is standard TV fodder. It's worthy of 'an introductory
paragraph' and no more - but is liable to make up the whole of a typical TV
programme. Anyone with knowledge and interest in practically any subject will
despair of the treatment of that subject by TV because there appears to be a
fear of reading beyond the ability and interest of the lowest common
denominator. Some programmes go beyond that but they are very rare - and your
questions suggest that you're not planning a ground-breaking series. Pity.
--
John
Fenny
2006-08-29 15:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W soc.genealogy.britain,
John Cartmell said ...
Post by John Cartmell
And whilst it may seem naeve, I think it would still make an interesting
idea to have, for example, a bin man with a rich family history going back
to royalty.
The problem with asking on a group like this is that the 'interest' is of a
perfunctory type that is standard TV fodder. It's worthy of 'an introductory
paragraph' and no more - but is liable to make up the whole of a typical TV
programme. Anyone with knowledge and interest in practically any subject will
despair of the treatment of that subject by TV because there appears to be a
fear of reading beyond the ability and interest of the lowest common
denominator. Some programmes go beyond that but they are very rare - and your
questions suggest that you're not planning a ground-breaking series. Pity.
Yes. Think of a programme like Horizon. At one time it was full of
interesting facts and people watched it in order to be entertained,
educated and informed. Nowadays, it tends to contain about 10 minutes
worth of actual material padded out by lots of silly music and guff and
people find it not worth the effort of switching on. I've even given up
watching things with Professor Robert Winston in as the content seems to
be overwhelmed by him just wandering about being famous.

I'm not entirely sure why I should be interested in a bin man whose
ancestors included royalty. But then I'm not sure why anyone thinks I
might be interested in the goings on of a bunch of people I've never met
locked up in a house being rude and uninteresting, or left on an island
being rude and uninteresting.

OTOH, if it's a programme with Dennis Lawson in a decent role, I'll be
happy.
--
Fenny

Mind you, if the Sealed Knot Society were to recreate The Battle Of The
Ikea Carpark I would go along and watch.
http://floss.blogspot.com/
Phil C.
2006-08-29 15:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fenny
I'm not entirely sure why I should be interested in a bin man whose
ancestors included royalty. But then I'm not sure why anyone thinks I
might be interested in the goings on of a bunch of people I've never met
locked up in a house being rude and uninteresting, or left on an island
being rude and uninteresting.
Here's an idea for a reality programme. Find a bin man who's descended
from royalty and then arrange a "life swap" with the current Royal
family. Bound to be a ratings hit.
Post by Fenny
OTOH, if it's a programme with Dennis Lawson in a decent role, I'll be
happy.
Erm... I'd never actually heard of him. I think I'm out of touch.
--
Phil C.
Fenny
2006-08-29 15:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W soc.genealogy.britain,
Phil C. said ...
Post by Phil C.
Post by Fenny
OTOH, if it's a programme with Dennis Lawson in a decent role, I'll be
happy.
Erm... I'd never actually heard of him. I think I'm out of touch.
You probably have, but may not take as much notice of him as I tend to.
Google is your friend.
--
Fenny

Willow: Is there anything you don't know everything about?
Giles: Synchronized swimming. Complete mystery to me.
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-29 18:06:52 UTC
Permalink
A "bin man" is a homeless person who takes food and other discarded items
out of bins?

Do you also use the expression "bag lady"?

DSH
celia
2006-08-29 18:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
A "bin man" is a homeless person who takes food and other discarded items
out of bins?
Do you also use the expression "bag lady"?
DSH
We are familiar withit from America.
It is more commonly used than it was.
The most used modern description is
'rough sleeper'

Celia
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-29 18:42:58 UTC
Permalink
So, was I correct in my tentative assumption about "bin man"?

DSH
Post by celia
Post by D. Spencer Hines
A "bin man" is a homeless person who takes food and other discarded items
out of bins?
Do you also use the expression "bag lady"?
DSH
We are familiar withit from America.
It is more commonly used than it was.
The most used modern description is
'rough sleeper'
Celia
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-29 19:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Thank you kindly.

Good Joke too.

A Dividend...

DSH

"EDEB"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
So, was I correct in my tentative assumption about "bin man"?
DSH
In British English a "bin man" or "binman" is a person who empties bins,
especially with a lorry. He works for the council, wears a uniform of
sorts and styles himself variously as "refuse operative", "waste
services", "hygiene official" and "binman".
My father was a bin man. I didn't like him picking me up at school,
though. It wasn't that I was ashamed of his job, it's just I didn't know
what day he would come...
EDEB.
Renia
2006-08-29 19:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
A "bin man" is a homeless person who takes food and other discarded items
out of bins?
Do you also use the expression "bag lady"?
DSH
To be honest, I've never heard of "bin man" for such a person. We used
to call them "tramps", and many people still do. (I think Americans call
them "hobos"?) Nowadays, they're mostly called "homeless", though Ceclia
may be more up-to-date than me with the term "rough sleeper".

A "bin man", to me, has always been a dustman, a garbage collecter,
someone who takes the rubbish away.

However, the term "bag lady" is quite common, particularly in London.
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-29 19:24:51 UTC
Permalink
"Bums" and "Hoboes" are both quite Politically Incorrect labels in America.

Just as bad as referring to a woman as a "girl" -- if a man is doing the
speaking or writing.

One occasionally hears "Street Person" -- but that's frowned on too.

"The Homeless" is the politically correct expression.

DSH

Reassured to learn there are bag ladies in London.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
A "bin man" is a homeless person who takes food and other discarded items
out of bins?
Do you also use the expression "bag lady"?
DSH
To be honest, I've never heard of "bin man" for such a person. We used to
call them "tramps", and many people still do. (I think Americans call them
"hobos"?) Nowadays, they're mostly called "homeless", though Ceclia may be
more up-to-date than me with the term "rough sleeper".
A "bin man", to me, has always been a dustman, a garbage collecter,
someone who takes the rubbish away.
However, the term "bag lady" is quite common, particularly in London.
m***@yahoo.co.uk
2006-09-01 15:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss p
You're right, I am indeed from a tv company
and giving my email address doesn't conceal what I am doing. However, I
simply plod along in developing ideas as to making programmes and this
is something that has really created an interest personally aswell for
me.
Katy, I don't know if you know of this- or is it even the same
project?- but there was a call last year for a show on royal
descendants. See:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2005-05/1117537805
for a copy of the announcement. My thought at the time was that a lot
of 'family tradition' descents are either impossible to prove (paper
trail non-existant or deliberately obscured), except perhaps by DNA; or
very easily disproved (a quick look at the chronology often refutes
them), which the people concerned really wouldn't welcome. But the
impression I get of your project is to do the genealogy first, then
find the people, is that right?
Post by miss p
I think it would still make an
interesting idea to have, for example, a bin man with a rich family
history going back to royalty. I also know we exist with many
descendants also from the royals and their illegitimates, but it is
still my mission to find some people in the uk living ordinary lives.
And would they ideally be unaware of the links- a kind of 'This Is Your
Life'? (I remember a programme a few years ago involving various
surprises, where a couple from the audience were informed they were
related to Dick Whittington.) I wonder indeed how people might react-
possibly with horror! I've been working at tracing all the descendants
of one man in the 18th century, they include labourers and viscounts;
one chap from a minor gentry branch (possibly with royal ancestry, but
unproven) seemed to get in trouble with the law, and later turns up as
a miner. Many of his descendants down to the 1901 census worked in the
mines, including the women; I do wonder whether they knew of their
ancestry. Any present-day relatives are unlikely to be miners, of
course...

-Matthew
c.pearcey
2006-09-01 16:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Honestly, what a potty lot some of you are! It's fascinating how some
people are just lovely and human and helpful while others get stuck up on
their high snotty horses.

I feel I should introduce myself into this furore since it was me, Miss P's
mother, who suggested she had a go on soc.genealogy as one option. I did
warn her about the up-their-orses brigade but I reckoned it would be a
learning experience for her as well as possibly a help with her project.
We've also been to our local Family History Society where Miss P has enjoyed
what you might call a crash course in discovering the wonderful world of
broken microfiches and idiosyncratic cataloguing systems.

All thanks to the Generous Brigade. Frostbite and hiccups to the meanies.

MRS P.
John Cartmell
2006-09-04 22:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by c.pearcey
Honestly, what a potty lot some of you are!
Does that include those of us who have tried to encourage your daughter to
give something of value to the group and get us on her side?
She's apparently working in an industry that, at the moment, rightly deserves
much criticism because of the cavalier way it treats people and serious
subjects. She needs to be able to defend that. So far the best she's done has
been to say that she has little or no control. She's wrong. She can do her job
better than required, better than the next person - and be counted amongst
those moving the industry in the right direction - no matter how junior her
position. She can ask what the group advises for her particular project and
promise to do her best to get the details right.

In short she can be pro-active.

Does she want to be 3rd rate in a 3rd rate industry or does she want to aim
higher?
--
John
m***@yahoo.co.uk
2006-09-22 12:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Further to this subject-
Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
there was a call last year for a show on royal
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2005-05/1117537805
for a copy of the announcement.
Here's yet another one! Genes Reunited also seems to be looking for
such stories:

"Does royal blood flow in your family? Did one of your ancestors have a
secret liaison with a sovereign?

We're looking for the descendents [sic] of illegitimate royal children
- the sons and daughters of the mistresses and illicit lovers of the
crown.

Tell us your stories by contacting Elizabeth in the press office at
***@genesreunited.co.uk today"

Hmm... Elizabeth, no surname- could she be looking for her own
relatives? ;-)
A. Gwilliam
2006-09-23 19:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
Further to this subject-
Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
there was a call last year for a show on royal
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2005-05/1117537805
for a copy of the announcement.
Here's yet another one! Genes Reunited also seems to be looking for
"Does royal blood flow in your family? Did one of your ancestors have
a secret liaison with a sovereign?
We're looking for the descendents [sic] of illegitimate royal children
- the sons and daughters of the mistresses and illicit lovers of the
crown.
Tell us your stories by contacting Elizabeth in the press office at
Genes Reunited is owned by ITV.
--
A. Gwilliam
To e-mail me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "devnull"
John Cartmell
2006-09-23 20:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by A. Gwilliam
Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
Further to this subject-
Post by m***@yahoo.co.uk
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2005-05/1117537805
for a copy of the announcement.
Here's yet another one! Genes Reunited also seems to be looking for such
"Does royal blood flow in your family? Did one of your ancestors have a
secret liaison with a sovereign?
We're looking for the descendents [sic] of illegitimate royal children -
the sons and daughters of the mistresses and illicit lovers of the crown.
Tell us your stories by contacting Elizabeth in the press office at
Genes Reunited is owned by ITV.
In that case I apologise for sending that encouraging e-mail for the crap
so-called esearcher.
--
John
Roy Stockdill
2006-08-29 14:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss p
Hi Roy - thanks for this. You're right, I am indeed from a tv company
and giving my email address doesn't conceal what I am doing. However,
I simply plod along in developing ideas as to making programmes and
this is something that has really created an interest personally
aswell for me. My mum Cathy has been a member of this group for a
while as she has traced our own family back for years and obviously
the interest has been passed on. I appreciate all your help - my mum
says you're a man with an excellent knowledge of all things genealogy
based so I really appreciate your feedback. And whilst it may seem
naeve, I think it would still make an interesting idea to have, for
example, a bin man with a rich family history going back to royalty. I
also know we exist with many descendants also from the royals and
their illegitimates, but it is still my mission to find some people in
the uk living ordinary lives. I am very aware of William IV and his
busy offspring - sadly they all seem to have titles however which is a
bit of a brick wall again for me. Thanks very much again - and I
really appreciate any thoughts you might have on this.>
As another lister pointed out, David Cameron is supposed to be a
descendant of William IV and Mrs Jordan - and he's trying very hard to
present himself as an ordinary bloke!

However, if you want a dustman who is descended from royalty you
might be better off advertising in the Sun or D Mirror, but be prepared
for a flood of wannabes that will take you forever to sort out. The bloke
in Jersey who thinks he's Princess Margaret's secret son sounds a bit of
a fruitcake to me. He doesn't seem to have said who the father was
supposed to be. However, to my amazement, the BBC website says that
if his claim is established he'll be 12th in line to the throne. Don't they
know an illegitimate person can't ascend to the throne - notwithstanding
the fact, of course, that technically every monarch since William the
Conqueror has been descended from a bastard?

You may have more success in placing an ad in the magazines like
Family Tree, Practical Family History and Your Family Tree.

--
Roy Stockdill
Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Slarty
2006-08-29 15:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss p
I want to know if there are any people in the UK today who are of
descendants of the royal family by being a bastard etc. I am
They're *all* useless bastards.
Eve McLaughlin
2006-08-29 16:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss p
I want to know if there are any people in the UK today who are of
descendants of the royal family by being a bastard etc. I am
particulary interested in finding 'normal' folk who believe they have
blue blood by some means or another but are not remotely 'royal'
There are many thousands of descendants of various royal bastards -
Anthony Camp has published a book concerning them, and many are very
well known lines of descent.
Post by miss p
Also there is Robert Brown who claims to be from
princess Margaret, but it's quite hard to prove
This is obviously daft - do you think she didn't know about
contraception and abortion?
Post by miss p
If anyone has ANY names past or present ( I can work back or forth) I
would really appreciate it?
Is this a muck raking exercise to make a salacious and illinformed telly
programme? Do we really want to do unpaid research for such a purpose?
--
Eve McLaughlin

Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
Lyndon
2006-08-31 11:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eve McLaughlin
There are many thousands of descendants of various royal bastards -
Anthony Camp has published a book concerning them, and many are very
well known lines of descent.
Post by miss p
Also there is Robert Brown who claims to be from
princess Margaret, but it's quite hard to prove
This is obviously daft - do you think she didn't know about
contraception and abortion?
Post by miss p
If anyone has ANY names past or present ( I can work back or forth) I
would really appreciate it?
Is this a muck raking exercise to make a salacious and illinformed telly
programme? Do we really want to do unpaid research for such a purpose?
Oh dear. Let's see if I've got this right. If Anthony Camp takes an interest
in a subject, that is fine. If a TV researcher takes an interest in the same
subject it's a muck raking exercise to make a salacious and illinformed
telly programme.

Can we go back to respecting views of people who approach subjects from a
different angle to ours? Can we go back to being nice to each other?
--
Lyndon
Eve McLaughlin
2006-08-31 17:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyndon
Let's see if I've got this right. If Anthony Camp takes an interest
in a subject, that is fine. If a TV researcher takes an interest in the same
subject it's a muck raking exercise to make a salacious and illinformed
telly programme.
That is a reasonable assessment. Television doesn't go for scholarly
research and aims for the lowest.
--
Eve McLaughlin

Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
Lyndon
2006-08-31 18:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eve McLaughlin
Post by Lyndon
Let's see if I've got this right. If Anthony Camp takes an interest
in a subject, that is fine. If a TV researcher takes an interest in the
same
Post by Lyndon
subject it's a muck raking exercise to make a salacious and illinformed
telly programme.
That is a reasonable assessment. Television doesn't go for scholarly
research and aims for the lowest.
You don't think perhaps you are prejudging the situation? I have no idea
whether the result would be salacious and illinformed as you suggest. It
would be dificult to be well informed if everyone treats 'miss p' the way
she has been treated by many in this group.

My question stands though. Can't we go back to being nice?
--
Lyndon
Roy Stockdill
2006-08-31 22:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyndon
Post by Eve McLaughlin
Post by Lyndon
Let's see if I've got this right. If Anthony Camp takes an interest
in a subject, that is fine. If a TV researcher takes an interest in the
same
Post by Lyndon
subject it's a muck raking exercise to make a salacious and
illinformed telly programme.
That is a reasonable assessment. Television doesn't go for scholarly
research and aims for the lowest.
You don't think perhaps you are prejudging the situation? I have no
idea whether the result would be salacious and illinformed as you
suggest. It would be dificult to be well informed if everyone treats
'miss p' the way she has been treated by many in this group.>
Oh dear, here we are again! Back in the same old dichotomy.

Having worked for many years, as most listers know, in the popular
media, and also now being a serious and professional genealogist, I
always find myself being able to see both sides.

Eve is, of course, right in a sense when she says that television doesn't
much go in for scholarly research and aims at the lowest common
denominator. Unfortunately for her and those who think like her, that is
the business television is largely in, just as are newspapers. They have
to pull in the punters, ie audiences, otherwise they wouldn't make any
money because they wouldn't be able to sell advertising space and they
would very quickly go out of business. So what are they supposed to do?
Make scholarly and academic programmes that would be watched by a
couple of dozen dons at Oxbridge (and their dogs)? That way lies a swift
route to Carey Street (that's the bankruptcy court, for the uninitiated).

The programme makers have little choice but to slant their programmes
at a popular market, ie non-academics, otherwise no-one is going to
watch them. We can all spot the holes and errors in Who Do You Think
You Are?, which I myself have done a number of times. However, I
have to recognise the exigencies of the situation and the contraints they
are working under. They are not aiming at an academic audience of
grey-beareded professors in their ivory towers, but a mass market of
ordinary people, who really don't much care how the information they
are being fed was obtained.

I swear and curse every time a new series of WDYTYA comes along
because I know damned well the GRO will be overwhelmed and I will
have to stop ordering online and revert to going to the FRC two or three
times a week! However, in the long run I cannot condemn the huge uplift
such programmes give to family history, for it demonstrates the
enormous demand for more and more resources being made available
online, which will benefit us all in the end.

Yes, of course television aims at a "dumbed-down" market when
screening history programmes. It's the only way they can get them on-
air. But is that really so bad when the alternative is no history, or family
history programmes at all?

--
Roy Stockdill
Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
John Cartmell
2006-09-01 08:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Eve is, of course, right in a sense when she says that television doesn't
much go in for scholarly research and aims at the lowest common
denominator. Unfortunately for her and those who think like her, that is
the business television is largely in, just as are newspapers. They have to
pull in the punters, ie audiences, otherwise they wouldn't make any money
because they wouldn't be able to sell advertising space and they would very
quickly go out of business. So what are they supposed to do?
Do their job better.
It's easier to do a crap job following standard tabloid 'rules' - make up your
mind before you leave the office and get quotes to fit. It's hard to make
programmes that are both factually correct and will keep the 'I am bored'
groups interested. It's even harder to make a programme that also satisfies
those who are really interested in the subject. Without a support team
teachers all over the world do the equivalent task every day for 5, 6, 7, or 8
lessons a day and also have the problem of negative feedback whilst they're
actually presenting their material.

If the programmers cannot do their job they should let someone else do it.
Whilst they are producing the current average they're being paid for not doing
their job.

NB There are exceptions and there are reasons outside the control of the
individual programme makers - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't demand the
very highest quality.
--
John
Chris Watts
2006-09-01 08:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Cartmell
Do their job better.
It's easier to do a crap job following standard tabloid 'rules' - make up your
mind before you leave the office and get quotes to fit. It's hard to make
programmes that are both factually correct and will keep the 'I am bored'
groups interested. It's even harder to make a programme that also satisfies
those who are really interested in the subject. Without a support team
teachers all over the world do the equivalent task every day for 5, 6, 7, or 8
lessons a day and also have the problem of negative feedback whilst they're
actually presenting their material.
If the programmers cannot do their job they should let someone else do it.
Whilst they are producing the current average they're being paid for not doing
their job.
NB There are exceptions and there are reasons outside the control of the
individual programme makers - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't demand the
very highest quality.
--
John
One problem that is generally avoidable is failure to check the info. How
often have I heard of people being asked to contribute to a programme or
article - and offering to check the result for errors. This has always been
refused on the grounds that it would contravene editoriial freedom. Yes,
and guess what - the result is full of errors.

How often also are we told that time is of the essence. Excepting, of
course hot news stories, this is usually the result of somebody,somewhere in
the media, not being able to plan. We all have limited time but why are
media requests are always "required yesterday"!

Chris

Chris
Lesley Robertson
2006-09-01 09:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Watts
One problem that is generally avoidable is failure to check the info. How
often have I heard of people being asked to contribute to a programme or
article - and offering to check the result for errors. This has always been
refused on the grounds that it would contravene editoriial freedom. Yes,
and guess what - the result is full of errors.
How often also are we told that time is of the essence. Excepting, of
course hot news stories, this is usually the result of somebody,somewhere in
the media, not being able to plan. We all have limited time but why are
media requests are always "required yesterday"!
I've had occaision to give interviews several times over the last couple of
years and have always only agreed on the condition that I will be given a
chance to check for errors (specifically factual errors, not opinions I
don't like, etc). In return I guarantee that if the article arrives by email
at a specified time, I will drop everything and check it immediately -
thereby avoiding the speed problem. It's always worked up to now - if they
don't agree, I don't do the interview... Of course, attitudes may be more
sensible in the scientific press!
Lesley Robertson
miss p
2006-09-01 15:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Well I'm amazed by the fury I have created and I apologise for being a
'lousy' researcher here to dumb down your entertainment viewing on the
box. I am sure you are all asked, on the whole, to do things in your
job you may not necessarily like or agree with. I am sure you often
just get on with the said task in hand as I am too. This is a subject I
know nothing of and am simply having a go.
I am trying to do my job to the best of my abilities and utilise the
internet - some of you have been incredibly helpful and I thank you
very much. As for the rest of you who have savaged my enquiries - noone
is forcing you to read my posts, and as I am assuming you are all
adults, I think you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. Go take
your internet bullying elsewhere.
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Chris Watts
One problem that is generally avoidable is failure to check the info. How
often have I heard of people being asked to contribute to a programme or
article - and offering to check the result for errors. This has always been
refused on the grounds that it would contravene editoriial freedom. Yes,
and guess what - the result is full of errors.
How often also are we told that time is of the essence. Excepting, of
course hot news stories, this is usually the result of somebody,somewhere in
the media, not being able to plan. We all have limited time but why are
media requests are always "required yesterday"!
I've had occaision to give interviews several times over the last couple of
years and have always only agreed on the condition that I will be given a
chance to check for errors (specifically factual errors, not opinions I
don't like, etc). In return I guarantee that if the article arrives by email
at a specified time, I will drop everything and check it immediately -
thereby avoiding the speed problem. It's always worked up to now - if they
don't agree, I don't do the interview... Of course, attitudes may be more
sensible in the scientific press!
Lesley Robertson
Charani
2006-09-01 15:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss p
As for the rest of you who have savaged my enquiries - noone
is forcing you to read my posts, and as I am assuming you are all
adults, I think you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. Go take
your internet bullying elsewhere.
Oh dear, you want to try dealing with some of the UK local groups. I
doubt you'd last five minutes there.

It isn't internet bullying to point out that a lot of your questions
you could have answered for yourself. Nor is it internet bullying to
wonder about the nature of the programme you claim *you* are
researching for. You still haven't responded, as far as I can see, to
either Ms McLaughlin's comments or to Mr Cartmell's question.
Howeveer, your aggressive response rather suggests that what they have
said if quite probably close to the mark.

Since genealogy is a subject you admit to knowing nothing about,
perhaps reading Mr Stockdill's Newbies Guide will help you understand
the subject better. You'll find the link in his sig file.

Have a nice day.
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
miss p
2006-09-01 15:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Charani - once again the one with the ruffled feathers - the reason I
may not have responded is a time management issue. I have a job in hand
to be getting on with - I suggest you look out for my name on the tv
screen in your home - if you find time to watch the television of
course. You seem to have a very busy 'virtual' life - all highbrow of
course.
Post by Charani
Post by miss p
As for the rest of you who have savaged my enquiries - noone
is forcing you to read my posts, and as I am assuming you are all
adults, I think you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. Go take
your internet bullying elsewhere.
Oh dear, you want to try dealing with some of the UK local groups. I
doubt you'd last five minutes there.
It isn't internet bullying to point out that a lot of your questions
you could have answered for yourself. Nor is it internet bullying to
wonder about the nature of the programme you claim *you* are
researching for. You still haven't responded, as far as I can see, to
either Ms McLaughlin's comments or to Mr Cartmell's question.
Howeveer, your aggressive response rather suggests that what they have
said if quite probably close to the mark.
Since genealogy is a subject you admit to knowing nothing about,
perhaps reading Mr Stockdill's Newbies Guide will help you understand
the subject better. You'll find the link in his sig file.
Have a nice day.
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
Charani
2006-09-01 16:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Once again the one with the ruffled feathers - the reason I
may not have responded is a time management issue. I have a job in hand
to be getting on with - I suggest you look out for my name on the tv
screen in your home - if you find time to watch the television of
course. You seem to have a very busy 'virtual' life - all highbrow of
course.
I've told you before - *no* ruffled feathers.

I'd have a job to look for your name on my TV screen at home - I don't
possess a TV. I'm far too busy for stuff like that. Quite apart from
anything else, there's nowt but rubbish on the box anyway.

Sarcasm, sweetie, is the lowest form of wit but, yes, I do have a very
busy *real* life. The time I spend on the computer doing research is
actually quite minimal.

Bye, and do enjoy the rest of your life using others to do your
research for you but claiming it all as your own.
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
miss p
2006-09-01 16:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Bless you Charani - I adopt sarcasm as my lowest form of wit for I am
simply lowbrow - however, you rather contradict yourself when you do
exactly the same. And if possessing a tv makes me scum, then so be it.
You're missing out on a whole education - particulary in having good
manners.
Post by Charani
Once again the one with the ruffled feathers - the reason I
may not have responded is a time management issue. I have a job in hand
to be getting on with - I suggest you look out for my name on the tv
screen in your home - if you find time to watch the television of
course. You seem to have a very busy 'virtual' life - all highbrow of
course.
I've told you before - *no* ruffled feathers.
I'd have a job to look for your name on my TV screen at home - I don't
possess a TV. I'm far too busy for stuff like that. Quite apart from
anything else, there's nowt but rubbish on the box anyway.
Sarcasm, sweetie, is the lowest form of wit but, yes, I do have a very
busy *real* life. The time I spend on the computer doing research is
actually quite minimal.
Bye, and do enjoy the rest of your life using others to do your
research for you but claiming it all as your own.
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
Charani
2006-09-02 08:28:32 UTC
Permalink
I adopt sarcasm as my lowest form of wit for I am simply lowbrow -
however, you rather contradict yourself when you do exactly the
same. And if possessing a tv makes me scum, then so be it. You're
missing out on a whole education.
One does have to talk a language that's understood :)) I was being
scathing rather than sarcastic actually. There is a difference.

I didn't say that possessing a TV makes you scum; simply that there's
now but rubbish on the box. If you equate rubbish on the box with you
being scum, then tis you who's missing out on a whole education, not
me.

I speak as I find but I'm not afraid to tell it like it is either.
One thing I don't do is get others to do my research for me and then
claim it as my own.

If you thought that saying I'd see your name on a TV screen would
impress me, you failed - miserably. Apart from having worked for a
national broadsheet, I've also worked in films, TV and radio so
nothing impresses me.
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
miss p
2006-09-03 16:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Charani - you were being saracastic - not to mention patronising. And
if you thought mentioning your career might impress me I really
couldn't give a stuff. You are too silly and tiresome and clearly live
a very unfulfilled life to spend your time getting all self righteous
on an internet chatroom. If you knew anything about working in media -
which i truly don't think you have a clue (writing letters of complaint
to broadsheets doesn't count and neither does being an extra or
whatever media related claims you make) then you would know time is
never of the essence, we exist on short term contracts and have to do
alot in a tiny amount of time. Therefore I was merely asking for advice
from people who are more in the know about this kind of thing - people
are allowed to share knowledge - it is not about getting other people
to do their work - the power of the internet is meant to be positive
but you clearly use it for the purpose of letting out some frustrations
you have in other areas of your life. Why can't you just be nice
instead of 'scathing' (which oddly you actually seem proud to be)?? Go
and take a nice bath and chill out. There's bigger things in life to be
getting all wound up about.
Post by Charani
I adopt sarcasm as my lowest form of wit for I am simply lowbrow -
however, you rather contradict yourself when you do exactly the
same. And if possessing a tv makes me scum, then so be it. You're
missing out on a whole education.
One does have to talk a language that's understood :)) I was being
scathing rather than sarcastic actually. There is a difference.
I didn't say that possessing a TV makes you scum; simply that there's
now but rubbish on the box. If you equate rubbish on the box with you
being scum, then tis you who's missing out on a whole education, not
me.
I speak as I find but I'm not afraid to tell it like it is either.
One thing I don't do is get others to do my research for me and then
claim it as my own.
If you thought that saying I'd see your name on a TV screen would
impress me, you failed - miserably. Apart from having worked for a
national broadsheet, I've also worked in films, TV and radio so
nothing impresses me.
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
S Viemeister
2006-09-03 19:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss p
Charani - you were being saracastic - not to mention patronising. And
if you thought mentioning your career might impress me I really
couldn't give a stuff. You are too silly and tiresome and clearly live
a very unfulfilled life to spend your time getting all self righteous
on an internet chatroom. If you knew anything about working in media -
which i truly don't think you have a clue (writing letters of complaint
to broadsheets doesn't count and neither does being an extra or
whatever media related claims you make) then you would know time is
never of the essence, we exist on short term contracts and have to do
alot in a tiny amount of time. Therefore I was merely asking for advice
from people who are more in the know about this kind of thing - people
are allowed to share knowledge - it is not about getting other people
to do their work - the power of the internet is meant to be positive
but you clearly use it for the purpose of letting out some frustrations
you have in other areas of your life. Why can't you just be nice
instead of 'scathing' (which oddly you actually seem proud to be)?? Go
and take a nice bath and chill out. There's bigger things in life to be
getting all wound up about.
If you want people to help you, being impolite is not likely to
encourage them to do so. Learn how to bite your tongue, and respond
politely, even if you think you're being 'picked on'.

Are you a writer or a researcher?
If you are a researcher, you seem to have little knowledge of how to
research.
If you are a writer, your command of the English language leaves much to
be desired.
John Cartmell
2006-09-03 22:26:54 UTC
Permalink
I was merely asking for advice from people who are more in the know about
this kind of thing
And to get that for free you need to earn trust. You failed. Miserably.

The assumption now is that you are pumping experts for free information
provided at their expense in time - and destined to produce a programme that
will not do the specialist area any good. Either put that misconception right
by confiding in us or get pigeon-holed as a nasty parasite. I *hope* you can
do the former.
--
John
miss p
2006-09-03 16:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Charani - you were being saracastic - not to mention patronising. And
if you thought mentioning your career might impress me I really
couldn't give a stuff. You are too silly and tiresome and clearly live
a very unfulfilled life to spend your time getting all self righteous
on an internet chatroom. If you knew anything about working in media -
which i truly don't think you have a clue (writing letters of complaint
to broadsheets doesn't count and neither does being an extra or
whatever media related claims you make) then you would know time is
never of the essence, we exist on short term contracts and have to do
alot in a tiny amount of time. Therefore I was merely asking for advice
from people who are more in the know about this kind of thing - people
are allowed to share knowledge - it is not about getting other people
to do their work - the power of the internet is meant to be positive
but you clearly use it for the purpose of letting out some frustrations
you have in other areas of your life. Why can't you just be nice
instead of 'scathing' (which oddly you actually seem proud to be)?? Go
and take a nice bath and chill out. There's bigger things in life to be
getting all wound up about.
Post by Charani
I adopt sarcasm as my lowest form of wit for I am simply lowbrow -
however, you rather contradict yourself when you do exactly the
same. And if possessing a tv makes me scum, then so be it. You're
missing out on a whole education.
One does have to talk a language that's understood :)) I was being
scathing rather than sarcastic actually. There is a difference.
I didn't say that possessing a TV makes you scum; simply that there's
now but rubbish on the box. If you equate rubbish on the box with you
being scum, then tis you who's missing out on a whole education, not
me.
I speak as I find but I'm not afraid to tell it like it is either.
One thing I don't do is get others to do my research for me and then
claim it as my own.
If you thought that saying I'd see your name on a TV screen would
impress me, you failed - miserably. Apart from having worked for a
national broadsheet, I've also worked in films, TV and radio so
nothing impresses me.
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
Sharon
2006-09-03 16:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Blah, blah, blah. Now who's the patronizing one? Your 'professionalism' leaves alot to be desired. Enjoy the sound of the plonking sound as you are now killfiled.

Sharon

----- Original Message ----
From: miss p <***@granadamedia.com>
To: GENBRIT-***@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2006 10:21:45 AM
Subject: Re: ROYAL BASTARDS LIVING TODAY?

Charani - you were being saracastic - not to mention patronising. And
if you thought mentioning your career might impress me I really
couldn't give a stuff. You are too silly and tiresome and clearly live
a very unfulfilled life to spend your time getting all self righteous
on an internet chatroom. If you knew anything about working in media -
which i truly don't think you have a clue (writing letters of complaint
to broadsheets doesn't count and neither does being an extra or
whatever media related claims you make) then you would know time is
never of the essence, we exist on short term contracts and have to do
alot in a tiny amount of time. Therefore I was merely asking for advice
from people who are more in the know about this kind of thing - people
are allowed to share knowledge - it is not about getting other people
to do their work - the power of the internet is meant to be positive
but you clearly use it for the purpose of letting out some frustrations
you have in other areas of your life. Why can't you just be nice
instead of 'scathing' (which oddly you actually seem proud to be)?? Go
and take a nice bath and chill out. There's bigger things in life to be
getting all wound up about.
GrannieAnnie
2006-09-03 17:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
Blah, blah, blah. Now who's the patronizing one? Your 'professionalism'
leaves alot to be desired. Enjoy the sound of the plonking sound as you
are now killfiled.
Sharon
Ditto, we can do without this nastiness.
miss p
2006-09-03 17:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Oh Sharon no!! I am really terrified of all these internet 'adults' -
please don't killfile' me I will never recover. Thank god I have a
sense of humour and can put everything into perspective.
Post by Sharon
Blah, blah, blah. Now who's the patronizing one? Your 'professionalism' leaves alot to be desired. Enjoy the sound of the plonking sound as you are now killfiled.
Sharon
----- Original Message ----
Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2006 10:21:45 AM
Subject: Re: ROYAL BASTARDS LIVING TODAY?
Charani - you were being saracastic - not to mention patronising. And
if you thought mentioning your career might impress me I really
couldn't give a stuff. You are too silly and tiresome and clearly live
a very unfulfilled life to spend your time getting all self righteous
on an internet chatroom. If you knew anything about working in media -
which i truly don't think you have a clue (writing letters of complaint
to broadsheets doesn't count and neither does being an extra or
whatever media related claims you make) then you would know time is
never of the essence, we exist on short term contracts and have to do
alot in a tiny amount of time. Therefore I was merely asking for advice
from people who are more in the know about this kind of thing - people
are allowed to share knowledge - it is not about getting other people
to do their work - the power of the internet is meant to be positive
but you clearly use it for the purpose of letting out some frustrations
you have in other areas of your life. Why can't you just be nice
instead of 'scathing' (which oddly you actually seem proud to be)?? Go
and take a nice bath and chill out. There's bigger things in life to be
getting all wound up about.
Jill
2006-09-03 17:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss p
Charani - you were being saracastic - not to mention patronising. And
if you thought mentioning your career might impress me I really
couldn't give a stuff. You are too silly and tiresome and clearly live
a very unfulfilled life to spend your time getting all self righteous
on an internet chatroom.
As an observer of this discussion its been very interesting.
You claim to be a professional media researcher - yet you have obviously
done no research
Or do you expect to get others to do the work [for free] for which you are
being paid?
Considering these posts are archived by google I hope you were never
thinking of using usenet at any future time for your "research" despite the
fact that this will cut you off from the expansive variety of topics covered
across the spectrum of life as we know it including some world reknowned
experts. Any time you ask an inane question anywhere else and someone checks
the archive for a reference point your ineptness and ill-manners will be
there for all to see.

You came into the group pretending to be looking for a book and suggesting
you had thought about the subject
This is a month ago - yet you have not learnt anything in that month, yet
expect others to provide you with information free gratis - and you have
obviously learnt nothing from your mother, either about genealogy or general
manners.

Charani very obviously has a very rich and full life, both on and off usenet
or the tinternet. I would respect any intimations she makes of past
experience as they are given and your clear attempts to demean her do you no
favours.
One might hope your boss does not browse google much and fall across this
little display of pique you have offered. It doesnot show off his department
in any good light.
I wish you luck in your future.
You have lost a GREAT deal of valuable help in more fields and subjects that
you could even guess at with your displays here. People and places who could
have been invaluable in your future career.
Maybe you would be better sticking to your soap operas. or you will be
moving jobs again soon. Or is Turnontv part of the Granada group?
--
regards
Jill Bowis
www.benderloch.org.uk/forum - Ardchattan history, geology, ecology,
genealogy, weather, webcam, local forum
www.kintaline.co.uk - where we are, what we do: Kintaline Plant and Poultry
Centre
miss p
2006-09-03 18:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Well done for googling my name Jill - you are clearly very busy.
Post by Jill
Post by miss p
Charani - you were being saracastic - not to mention patronising. And
if you thought mentioning your career might impress me I really
couldn't give a stuff. You are too silly and tiresome and clearly live
a very unfulfilled life to spend your time getting all self righteous
on an internet chatroom.
As an observer of this discussion its been very interesting.
You claim to be a professional media researcher - yet you have obviously
done no research
Or do you expect to get others to do the work [for free] for which you are
being paid?
Considering these posts are archived by google I hope you were never
thinking of using usenet at any future time for your "research" despite the
fact that this will cut you off from the expansive variety of topics covered
across the spectrum of life as we know it including some world reknowned
experts. Any time you ask an inane question anywhere else and someone checks
the archive for a reference point your ineptness and ill-manners will be
there for all to see.
You came into the group pretending to be looking for a book and suggesting
you had thought about the subject
This is a month ago - yet you have not learnt anything in that month, yet
expect others to provide you with information free gratis - and you have
obviously learnt nothing from your mother, either about genealogy or general
manners.
Charani very obviously has a very rich and full life, both on and off usenet
or the tinternet. I would respect any intimations she makes of past
experience as they are given and your clear attempts to demean her do you no
favours.
One might hope your boss does not browse google much and fall across this
little display of pique you have offered. It doesnot show off his department
in any good light.
I wish you luck in your future.
You have lost a GREAT deal of valuable help in more fields and subjects that
you could even guess at with your displays here. People and places who could
have been invaluable in your future career.
Maybe you would be better sticking to your soap operas. or you will be
moving jobs again soon. Or is Turnontv part of the Granada group?
--
regards
Jill Bowis
www.benderloch.org.uk/forum - Ardchattan history, geology, ecology,
genealogy, weather, webcam, local forum
www.kintaline.co.uk - where we are, what we do: Kintaline Plant and Poultry
Centre
Jill
2006-09-03 18:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss p
Well done for googling my name Jill - you are clearly very busy.
It took less than 3 minutes
I was waiting for a pan of water to boil.
Verminator
2006-09-04 18:52:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss p
Well done for googling my name Jill - you are clearly very busy.
Just a small quesion...
You wouldn't be the great-granddaughter of Thomas William Grafton
Grattan would you?

--
The Verminator
Steve Bamford
2006-09-04 17:52:35 UTC
Permalink
" Jill" <***@NOSPAMkintaline.co.uk> wrote in message news:44fb15a9$0$3213$***@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
<snip>
Post by Jill
As an observer of this discussion its been very interesting.
You claim to be a professional media researcher - yet you have obviously
done no research
Or do you expect to get others to do the work [for free] for which you are
being paid?
Considering these posts are archived by google I hope you were never
thinking of using usenet at any future time for your "research" despite
the fact that this will cut you off from the expansive variety of topics
covered across the spectrum of life as we know it including some world
reknowned experts. Any time you ask an inane question anywhere else and
someone checks the archive for a reference point your ineptness and
ill-manners will be there for all to see.
You came into the group pretending to be looking for a book and suggesting
you had thought about the subject
This is a month ago - yet you have not learnt anything in that month, yet
expect others to provide you with information free gratis - and you have
obviously learnt nothing from your mother, either about genealogy or
general manners.
Charani very obviously has a very rich and full life, both on and off
usenet or the tinternet. I would respect any intimations she makes of past
experience as they are given and your clear attempts to demean her do you
no favours.
One might hope your boss does not browse google much and fall across this
little display of pique you have offered. It doesnot show off his
department in any good light.
I wish you luck in your future.
You have lost a GREAT deal of valuable help in more fields and subjects
that you could even guess at with your displays here. People and places
who could have been invaluable in your future career.
Maybe you would be better sticking to your soap operas. or you will be
moving jobs again soon. Or is Turnontv part of the Granada group?
As another observer of this discussion, isn't this a bit over the top?

If you look at "miss p"'s earlier postings in this and and other threads you
might understand why she intended up getting angry having started out very
polite and appreciative. Responding to rudeness and abuse in like manner
may not be advisable, but is perhaps understandable.

It does not seem unreasonable to me to seek help from a newsgroup alongside
whatever other research you're doing. If people don't want to offer free
advice they have the option of not responding.

Steve
Sharon
2006-09-04 18:15:24 UTC
Permalink
One has to wonder why you are defending miss p when she brought it on herself. Her professionalism is shameful.

Sharon

----- Original Message ----
From: Steve Bamford <***@bamfordparry.freeserve.co.uk>
To: GENBRIT-***@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2006 11:52:35 AM
Subject: Re: ROYAL BASTARDS LIVING TODAY?

As another observer of this discussion, isn't this a bit over the top?

If you look at "miss p"'s earlier postings in this and and other threads you
might understand why she intended up getting angry having started out very
polite and appreciative. Responding to rudeness and abuse in like manner
may not be advisable, but is perhaps understandable.

It does not seem unreasonable to me to seek help from a newsgroup alongside
whatever other research you're doing. If people don't want to offer free
advice they have the option of not responding.

Steve
Jill
2006-09-04 18:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Bamford
As another observer of this discussion, isn't this a bit over the top?
I had carefully read all her posts before responding
She came here without doing any preparatory work at all -- nadda
She is a professional researcher for goodness sake
As a newbie here not so many years ago and still VERY much a novice at all
this I empathise with the novice point of view
I suppose that because I trained as a researcher [unfortunately rusty], I
spend my days and nights "helping" beginners and novices in other fields of
life, and I have lurked here for several years I can see many of the
different points of view.
This environment is very strange and artificial. Its not simply a place to
put in dumb questions and get each and every one answered day in and day out
by unpaid professionals. Bear in mind some of the folks here [ and their
equivalent on other special interest groups] are the top of their field. If
you wanted to get the equivalent advice on the open market you would be
talking £50 - £200 an hour!!
Its articifial because we all communicate in writing only but its an
informal place where people get to know others so the writing stops being as
formal as it might be. After a while intonation can be inferred if you are
familiar with someones style. Any new person coming into this fluid and
vibrant community has to tune their ear into the moods of the regulars. Its
like being a new person in a village pub. The response here is a darn sight
more polite to folks who have no manners than it would be in that scenario.
Post by Steve Bamford
It does not seem unreasonable to me to seek help from a newsgroup
alongside whatever other research you're doing. If people don't want
to offer free advice they have the option of not responding.
I quite agree with you and for those folks who are working away at their
family histories at what ever level this is just about the most amazing
place to be
MP was not - she was a professional media researcher working on a project
hoping to get as much work done for her without doing the very basics
herself. This was plain from the first post.
I have had the same on the phone time and again in "my" professional life. I
am increasingly astonished at the inability of any media researcher to
engage even the most basic of grey cells. I will admit that this may have
coloured my reply a little.

I really look forward to hearing of your [and everyone elses] genealogical
problems for the wonderful folks here to untangle.
Its a fascinating hobby and completely addictive.
Each of us will learn something from everyone elses questions. Even if it is
only that media researchers need a great deal better training before they
get paid to do their job - or that any amateur genealogist would do it a
great deal better
<grin>
--
regards Jill Bowis
Surnames search
Senior, Ashworth, Pulman, Crossland, Ambler, Neutkens, Hebblethwaite,
Nuttal, Taylor
Mair, Brown [ABS], Lawrie, Sutherland, Rainey, Hunter, Pittendriech, Sumner,
Moss, Houghton, Hampson, Owen, Smethurst,
Lister, Vaughan, Maltby, Tomlinson, Stewart[London], Yabbicom,
Smith[Leicester], Beaumont, Gibson, Wickings
Bowis, Palin, Parish, Foster, Newlove, Yabbicom, Goodall, Stewart [Paisley],
MacKinlay, Watt, Green, Smith, Weir, Hair, tentative one name : Bowis
www.bowis.co.uk One place: Ardchattan, Argyll www.benderloch.org.uk/forum
Steve Bamford
2006-09-04 19:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jill
Post by Steve Bamford
As another observer of this discussion, isn't this a bit over the top?
I had carefully read all her posts before responding
She came here without doing any preparatory work at all -- nadda
She is a professional researcher for goodness sake
As a newbie here not so many years ago and still VERY much a novice at all
this I empathise with the novice point of view
I suppose that because I trained as a researcher [unfortunately rusty], I
spend my days and nights "helping" beginners and novices in other fields
of life, and I have lurked here for several years I can see many of the
different points of view.
This environment is very strange and artificial. Its not simply a place to
put in dumb questions and get each and every one answered day in and day
out by unpaid professionals. Bear in mind some of the folks here [ and
their equivalent on other special interest groups] are the top of their
field. If you wanted to get the equivalent advice on the open market you
would be talking £50 - £200 an hour!!
Its articifial because we all communicate in writing only but its an
informal place where people get to know others so the writing stops being
as formal as it might be. After a while intonation can be inferred if you
are familiar with someones style. Any new person coming into this fluid
and vibrant community has to tune their ear into the moods of the
regulars. Its like being a new person in a village pub. The response here
is a darn sight more polite to folks who have no manners than it would be
in that scenario.
Post by Steve Bamford
It does not seem unreasonable to me to seek help from a newsgroup
alongside whatever other research you're doing. If people don't want
to offer free advice they have the option of not responding.
I quite agree with you and for those folks who are working away at their
family histories at what ever level this is just about the most amazing
place to be
MP was not - she was a professional media researcher working on a project
hoping to get as much work done for her without doing the very basics
herself. This was plain from the first post.
I have had the same on the phone time and again in "my" professional life.
I am increasingly astonished at the inability of any media researcher to
engage even the most basic of grey cells. I will admit that this may have
coloured my reply a little.
I really look forward to hearing of your [and everyone elses] genealogical
problems for the wonderful folks here to untangle.
Its a fascinating hobby and completely addictive.
Each of us will learn something from everyone elses questions. Even if it
is only that media researchers need a great deal better training before
they get paid to do their job - or that any amateur genealogist would do
it a great deal better
<grin>
--
Just 2 points - I don't want to prolong this discussion unnecessarily

1) you can be a professional researcher but naive about a specific topic
such as genealogy
2) As I've said elsewhere I would think twice before submitting an enquury
to this ng having seen the kinds of responses others have had, this being
far from an isolated instance.
Jill
2006-09-04 20:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Bamford
Just 2 points - I don't want to prolong this discussion unnecessarily
1) you can be a professional researcher but naive about a specific
topic such as genealogy
I completely agree - but to be a professional researcher and not to have
EVEN used google for the most basic of enquiry ????????
I was not condemning her for her lack of knowledge about genealogy --
ALTHOUGH with a relative who has been here for years and for her not to have
managed to get even the slightest idea does not bode well for her future
career prospects!!!!!
Post by Steve Bamford
2) As I've said elsewhere I would think twice before submitting an
enquury to this ng having seen the kinds of responses others have
had, this being far from an isolated instance.
I would urge you to do so
Yes this is a robust group but its far from bad. These are real people with
real things going on in their lives and none are being paid to be here or to
be polite.
The rubbish that has come in recently with the cross posting has lead to
more "positive" answers than most - if you take a look in the archives you
can see why.
The best response is to kilfile certain people who you cannot listen to --
if that includes me - I am sorry, genuinely. But I will not be a great loss
to your efforts although I try to help some newbies when the experienced
folks are busy or just satiated with helping folks. Its a much cleaner group
with the X posts removed.
If you want to know something from other groups -- go to them specifically
and sort the gems from the mudstone:~)

The activity here will increase as the autumn and winter draws in. Long
winters nights and all that!!!
<g>

This is not the place to get someone else to do your research but, by
crivens, you will learn an immense amount being around here and if you have
a genuine problem bring it forth - lay down what you have done and where you
have looked and the abilities of this group will astound you.

If you have any spare time -- volunteer for one of the transcription
projects -- this community revolves around people giving. There are always
people giving and you can rarely repay the donor -- if you can give back in
a different way than what goes around comes around

happy hunting
--
regards Jill Bowis
Surnames search
Senior, Ashworth, Pulman, Crossland, Ambler, Neutkens, Hebblethwaite,
Nuttal, Taylor
Mair, Brown [ABS], Lawrie, Sutherland, Rainey, Hunter, Pittendriech, Sumner,
Moss, Houghton, Hampson, Owen, Smethurst,
Lister, Vaughan, Maltby, Tomlinson, Stewart[London], Yabbicom,
Smith[Leicester], Beaumont, Gibson, Wickings
Bowis, Palin, Parish, Foster, Newlove, Yabbicom, Goodall, Stewart [Paisley],
MacKinlay, Watt, Green, Smith, Weir, Hair, tentative one name : Bowis
www.bowis.co.uk One place: Ardchattan, Argyll www.benderloch.org.uk/forum
Fenny
2006-09-04 21:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W soc.genealogy.britain,
Jill said ...
Post by Jill
This is not the place to get someone else to do your research but, by
crivens, you will learn an immense amount being around here and if you have
a genuine problem bring it forth - lay down what you have done and where you
have looked and the abilities of this group will astound you.
I'll vouch for this. I've only been posting in here for a few months, but
I've certainly picked up an awful lot of useful tips and information.
--
Fenny

and I get trouble with my breathing
she says boys don't know anything
Dire Straits - Expresso Love
Q
2006-09-05 02:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jill
Post by Steve Bamford
Just 2 points - I don't want to prolong this discussion unnecessarily
1) you can be a professional researcher but naive about a specific
topic such as genealogy
I completely agree - but to be a professional researcher and not to have
EVEN used google for the most basic of enquiry ????????
I was not condemning her for her lack of knowledge about genealogy --
ALTHOUGH with a relative who has been here for years and for her not to have
managed to get even the slightest idea does not bode well for her future
career prospects!!!!!
Why does everybody in this newsgroup take such an invidious interest in
other people's careers?

Perhaps some of you really do need to get a life.
Post by Jill
Post by Steve Bamford
2) As I've said elsewhere I would think twice before submitting an
enquury to this ng having seen the kinds of responses others have
had, this being far from an isolated instance.
I would urge you to do so
Yes this is a robust group but its far from bad. These are real people with
real things going on in their lives and none are being paid to be here or to
be polite.
Being polite is a basic qualification for most business and social
transactions.
Post by Jill
The rubbish that has come in recently with the cross posting has lead to
more "positive" answers than most - if you take a look in the archives you
can see why.
The best response is to kilfile certain people who you cannot listen to --
if that includes me - I am sorry, genuinely. But I will not be a great loss
to your efforts although I try to help some newbies when the experienced
folks are busy or just satiated with helping folks. Its a much cleaner group
with the X posts removed.
You seem to be saying that people you don't like are "dirty."
Post by Jill
If you want to know something from other groups -- go to them specifically
and sort the gems from the mudstone:~)
The activity here will increase as the autumn and winter draws in. Long
winters nights and all that!!!
<g>
And especially when there is a full moon.
Post by Jill
This is not the place to get someone else to do your research but, by
crivens, you will learn an immense amount being around here and if you have
a genuine problem bring it forth - lay down what you have done and where you
have looked and the abilities of this group will astound you.
If you have any spare time -- volunteer for one of the transcription
projects -- this community revolves around people giving
Ack!!

There are always
Post by Jill
people giving and you can rarely repay the donor -- if you can give back in
a different way than what goes around comes around
Puleeze!!! You sound exactly like a cheap, unctuous politician -- or a
clergyman. -- Q
Kay Robinson
2006-09-04 23:39:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:42:32 +0100, "Steve Bamford"
<***@bamfordparry.freeserve.co.uk> sharpened a new quill and
scratched:

---> bobbit
Post by Steve Bamford
Just 2 points - I don't want to prolong this discussion unnecessarily
1) you can be a professional researcher but naive about a specific topic
such as genealogy
Isn't the point of being a 'professional' researcher that one knows
exactly where and how to find information on topics one is 'naive'
about. Most of us on this group, or in any hobby, are amateur
researchers.
Post by Steve Bamford
2) As I've said elsewhere I would think twice before submitting an enquury
to this ng having seen the kinds of responses others have had, this being
far from an isolated instance.
I've found in the many years I've read and contributed to this group
that the vast majority of enquiries receive lots of learned advice and
help.

Kay

- - -

All replies to newsgroup thank you
--------------------------------------------
A good end cannot sanctify evil, nor must
we ever do evil that good may come of it.
Force may subdue, but Love gains, and he
that forgives first wins the laurel.

William Penn 1644-1718
-----------------------------------------
Kay Robinson
Give all you can, Take only what you need
Richard van Schaik
2006-09-05 00:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kay Robinson
I've found in the many years I've read and contributed to this group
that the vast majority of enquiries receive lots of learned advice and
help.
In that case I would like to know why my single question in this group
didn't give any answers yet. Is because its a stupid question (I'll
enhance it by more research in The Netherlands if possible) or because
the answer is not known (that also I would like to know). Thusfar I've
to search the whole of Great Brittain, and that is a bit much for me! We
do have e.g. a Dutch regiments site were all regiment in the BeNeLux
(sometimes also further) are given with places they went and so on. And
the site on soldiers were information is given on persons with some
partial information available. This last one I also submitted "my"
Thomas Bailey to. Then the dutch pronounciation becomes important, in
our language his name would be transcribed in those times as Belie,
Bellie, Belij, Balie, Bellegie and possibly some others. Any foreign
name in The Netherlands is difficult to research as the names are almost
given per event in a different spelling. The above are the ones I
thusfar found and could reasonably prove to belong to the same family.
But also it is possible that the surname was not used in baptism and
then I do have to know the father of Thomas to be able to continue, as
the indexes are on either surname or patronym. A slight possibility is
"Eduard" (Edward) as this name is less common in The Netherlands (one of
his grandsons is named Eduard), but there is not the slightest proof for
that. I'll however also resesarch that name, but after that one I'm out
of options apart from his militairy unit.

Regards,
Richard
--
Richard van Schaik
***@THISwanadoo.nl
http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/
Kay Robinson
2006-09-05 07:53:39 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 02:19:51 +0200, Richard van Schaik
Post by Richard van Schaik
Post by Kay Robinson
I've found in the many years I've read and contributed to this group
that the vast majority of enquiries receive lots of learned advice and
help.
In that case I would like to know why my single question in this group
didn't give any answers yet. Is because its a stupid question (I'll
enhance it by more research in The Netherlands if possible) or because
the answer is not known (that also I would like to know).
---> bobbit

Well Richard, I did say the vast majority, not all, and, if a question
can't be answered it just can't. Posting any question must be based on
the hope that someone can provide an answer, or at least pointers
toward other possible places to look. There's always going to be one
that has everyone stumped. In such case would you rather wade through
a few hundred replies saying 'sorry can't help' :-)

There's also a chance that a request hasn't propagated around the news
servers, a hiccup with any one of a number of such could prove fatal
for your message. This has happened to me on more than one occasion

Kay

- - -

All replies to newsgroup thank you
--------------------------------------------
A good end cannot sanctify evil, nor must
we ever do evil that good may come of it.
Force may subdue, but Love gains, and he
that forgives first wins the laurel.

William Penn 1644-1718
-----------------------------------------
Kay Robinson
Give all you can, Take only what you need
Jill
2006-09-05 08:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kay Robinson
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 02:19:51 +0200, Richard van Schaik
Post by Richard van Schaik
Post by Kay Robinson
I've found in the many years I've read and contributed to this group
that the vast majority of enquiries receive lots of learned advice
and help.
In that case I would like to know why my single question in this
group didn't give any answers yet. Is because its a stupid question
(I'll enhance it by more research in The Netherlands if possible) or
because the answer is not known (that also I would like to know).
---> bobbit
Well Richard, I did say the vast majority, not all, and, if a question
can't be answered it just can't. Posting any question must be based on
the hope that someone can provide an answer, or at least pointers
toward other possible places to look. There's always going to be one
that has everyone stumped. In such case would you rather wade through
a few hundred replies saying 'sorry can't help' :-)
Its also on the archive so someone else might be able to help in the future
Another way is to separate the queries.
If I read you correctly, and I understand that English is not your first
language, your main aim is to find information about an English regimental
unit which was lead by a man called Herbert which was in Utrecht in December
1643.

A soldier in this unit was a Thomas Bailey although that is an assumed
understanding of the name by a Dutch registrar so variants may be possible.

I am afraid I did not understand the connection between him and Geertge
Peters but that is probably my fault.

As this was posted in the middle of the summer holidays when most folks are
doing other things and during a particularly silly bit of posting by x
posters you might find it useful to ask again

It may be that no-one present has the answers.
--
regards Jill Bowis
Surnames search
Senior, Ashworth, Pulman, Crossland, Ambler, Neutkens, Hebblethwaite,
Nuttal, Taylor
Mair, Brown [ABS], Lawrie, Sutherland, Rainey, Hunter, Pittendriech, Sumner,
Moss, Houghton, Hampson, Owen, Smethurst,
Lister, Vaughan, Maltby, Tomlinson, Stewart[London], Yabbicom,
Smith[Leicester], Beaumont, Gibson, Wickings
Bowis, Palin, Parish, Foster, Newlove, Yabbicom, Goodall, Stewart [Paisley],
MacKinlay, Watt, Green, Smith, Weir, Hair, tentative one name : Bowis
www.bowis.co.uk One place: Ardchattan, Argyll www.benderloch.org.uk/forum
Richard van Schaik
2006-09-05 16:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jill
Its also on the archive so someone else might be able to help in the future
Another way is to separate the queries.
If I read you correctly, and I understand that English is not your first
language, your main aim is to find information about an English regimental
unit which was lead by a man called Herbert which was in Utrecht in December
1643.
Correct, just to identify possible places to look for Thomas "Bailey".
The whole of Great Britain is a bit much to swallow, there might have
been more Thomas "Bailey"s around. So a slight ;-) limitation of where
to start searching would be very helpfull.
Post by Jill
A soldier in this unit was a Thomas Bailey although that is an assumed
understanding of the name by a Dutch registrar so variants may be possible.
The christian name I think is spelled correctly because it is used in
The Netherlands and pronounced almost the same in Dutch. Just the
surname is my assumption translating the sound in dutch back to the most
probable spelling of the surname in English. But you are fully right in
that variants should be looked at also. Already the fact that I'm using
current day pronounciation for something written about 360 years ago may
lead to errors.
Post by Jill
I am afraid I did not understand the connection between him and Geertge
Peters but that is probably my fault.
Thomas "Bailey" married Geertge Peters on December 18th, 1643 in Utrecht
while being soldier in the regiment of Colonel Herbert. That he was
soldier is mentioned in the marriage deed. If I did not explain this
well enough it is entirely my mistake.
Post by Jill
As this was posted in the middle of the summer holidays when most folks are
doing other things and during a particularly silly bit of posting by x
posters you might find it useful to ask again
I'll do just that after I've been in the Utrecht archive again (next
Friday) to see if I can find some more data about this family.

Thanks,
Richard
--
Richard van Schaik
***@THISwanadoo.nl
http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/
Jill
2006-09-05 16:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard van Schaik
Post by Jill
Its also on the archive so someone else might be able to help in the
future Another way is to separate the queries.
If I read you correctly, and I understand that English is not your
first language, your main aim is to find information about an
English regimental unit which was lead by a man called Herbert which
was in Utrecht in December 1643.
Correct, just to identify possible places to look for Thomas "Bailey".
The whole of Great Britain is a bit much to swallow, there might have
been more Thomas "Bailey"s around. So a slight ;-) limitation of where
to start searching would be very helpfull.
hmm
you have a problem
The IGI suggests 725 possibles christened 20 years either side of 1620
Fairly scattered too.
Post by Richard van Schaik
Post by Jill
A soldier in this unit was a Thomas Bailey although that is an
assumed understanding of the name by a Dutch registrar so variants
may be possible.
The christian name I think is spelled correctly because it is used in
The Netherlands and pronounced almost the same in Dutch. Just the
surname is my assumption translating the sound in dutch back to the
most probable spelling of the surname in English. But you are fully
right in that variants should be looked at also. Already the fact
that I'm using current day pronounciation for something written about
360 years ago may lead to errors.
What is the exact name as written on the marriage certificate?
Post by Richard van Schaik
Post by Jill
I am afraid I did not understand the connection between him and
Geertge Peters but that is probably my fault.
Thomas "Bailey" married Geertge Peters on December 18th, 1643 in
Utrecht while being soldier in the regiment of Colonel Herbert. That
he was soldier is mentioned in the marriage deed. If I did not
explain this well enough it is entirely my mistake.
I see now -- I was not thinking clearly enough and did not think of Geertge
as being female
Not enough coffee!!

What ages were given by the pair?
Was his fathers name /occupation given?
Post by Richard van Schaik
Post by Jill
As this was posted in the middle of the summer holidays when most
folks are doing other things and during a particularly silly bit of
posting by x posters you might find it useful to ask again
I'll do just that after I've been in the Utrecht archive again (next
Friday) to see if I can find some more data about this family.
Emphasis the regiment bit

Finding an individual in the 1600's is much more difficult but there are
military historians who may be able to give you some clues
--
regards
Jill Bowis
www.benderloch.org.uk/forum - Ardchattan history, geology, ecology,
genealogy, weather, webcam, local forum
www.kintaline.co.uk - where we are, what we do: Kintaline Plant and Poultry
Centre
Richard van Schaik
2006-09-05 18:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jill
Post by Richard van Schaik
Correct, just to identify possible places to look for Thomas "Bailey".
The whole of Great Britain is a bit much to swallow, there might have
been more Thomas "Bailey"s around. So a slight ;-) limitation of where
to start searching would be very helpfull.
The IGI suggests 725 possibles christened 20 years either side of 1620
Fairly scattered too.
I took ten years around 1615 and had about the same problem. I forgot to
mention that I did try a search on www.familysearch.org for hints, but
this number of "hints" is to much and to widespread to research.
Post by Jill
What is the exact name as written on the marriage certificate?
That was very close to my assumed spelling in English (female first as
this is the notation from the indexes (her name was easier to search
for), but the original states the same):
Name: Peters; Geertge
Adress: Verckemarckt (Pigsmarket)
Residence: Utrecht
Religion: Gereformeerd (Reformed)
Marriage: 18-12-1643 te Utrecht, Jacobskerk (Utrecht, Jacobschurch)
Name: Bailly; Thomas
Reference (book and page): 97 - 124
Remarks: Soldaat onder Colonel Herbert (Soldier serving Colonel Herbert)
Post by Jill
I see now -- I was not thinking clearly enough and did not think of Geertge
as being female
It is a very common female name in The Netherlands, currently mostly
spelled as Geertruida. [My aunt married in England having the christian
names Grietje Geertruida Jacoba ........ the civil servant couldn't
pronounce that in any way resembling the Dutch pronounciation :-) so the
"future spouse" had to give his best trial at that one. The Dutch "G" is
pronounced very differently from the English one.]
Post by Jill
What ages were given by the pair?
Was his fathers name /occupation given?
The above is the whole text I just translated fieldnames from the index
and added remarks between brackets.
Post by Jill
Post by Richard van Schaik
I'll do just that after I've been in the Utrecht archive again (next
Friday) to see if I can find some more data about this family.
Emphasis the regiment bit
That part I will look at also using some dutch sites available. Maybe
this time I'm more lucky than on my previous trial.
Post by Jill
Finding an individual in the 1600's is much more difficult but there are
military historians who may be able to give you some clues
Any clue is appreciated, I know research becomes harder and harder the
further you go back in time (especially the prove).

Regards,
Richard
--
Richard van Schaik
***@THISwanadoo.nl
http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/
Eve McLaughlin
2006-09-06 00:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard van Schaik
Thomas "Bailey" married Geertge Peters on December 18th, 1643 in Utrecht
while being soldier in the regiment of Colonel Herbert.
Regiments were then known by the name of the commander for the time
being. The only hope is that you can get some continuity with a later
regiment, whose records are at the |National Archives.
The best hope might be to look for a PCC will
on www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents online/wills
around the 1640/50s, seeking the will of a Colonel Herbert, possibly
labelled 'PTS, meaning that he died in (foreign) parts (beyond the
seas).
If he had any property in England, and a member of the Herbert family
probably would), then his will had to be proved in the Prerogative Court
(PCC).
You could even try Thomas Bailey - if he had amassed a bit of property
and deposited some of his money in England, then the same would apply to
his will. This might very well appoint 'my brother John Bailey of
Mincing Lane, London, ' as executor, or leave money to 'my mother Jane
Bailey of Cheltenham'.
Worth trying, anyway.
--
Eve McLaughlin

Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
Richard van Schaik
2006-09-06 16:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eve McLaughlin
Post by Richard van Schaik
Thomas "Bailey" married Geertge Peters on December 18th, 1643 in Utrecht
while being soldier in the regiment of Colonel Herbert.
Regiments were then known by the name of the commander for the time
being. The only hope is that you can get some continuity with a later
regiment, whose records are at the |National Archives.
The best hope might be to look for a PCC will
on www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents online/wills
around the 1640/50s, seeking the will of a Colonel Herbert, possibly
labelled 'PTS, meaning that he died in (foreign) parts (beyond the
seas).
If he had any property in England, and a member of the Herbert family
probably would), then his will had to be proved in the Prerogative Court
(PCC).
You could even try Thomas Bailey - if he had amassed a bit of property
and deposited some of his money in England, then the same would apply to
his will. This might very well appoint 'my brother John Bailey of
Mincing Lane, London, ' as executor, or leave money to 'my mother Jane
Bailey of Cheltenham'.
Many thanks, I'm off searching for a while!

Richard
--
Richard van Schaik
***@THISwanadoo.nl
http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/
Richard van Schaik
2006-09-05 16:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kay Robinson
Well Richard, I did say the vast majority, not all, and, if a question
can't be answered it just can't. Posting any question must be based on
the hope that someone can provide an answer, or at least pointers
toward other possible places to look. There's always going to be one
that has everyone stumped. In such case would you rather wade through
a few hundred replies saying 'sorry can't help' :-)
Thanks, you are right! It is just that I sincerly would like to get
further back with my research and sometimes am slightly impatient to
continue ;-)

Regards,
Richard
--
Richard van Schaik
***@THISwanadoo.nl
http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/
Kay Robinson
2006-09-05 18:42:42 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:39:34 +0200, Richard van Schaik
Post by Richard van Schaik
Post by Kay Robinson
Well Richard, I did say the vast majority, not all, and, if a question
can't be answered it just can't. Posting any question must be based on
the hope that someone can provide an answer, or at least pointers
toward other possible places to look. There's always going to be one
that has everyone stumped. In such case would you rather wade through
a few hundred replies saying 'sorry can't help' :-)
Thanks, you are right! It is just that I sincerly would like to get
further back with my research and sometimes am slightly impatient to
continue ;-)
Me too, very annoyed that another day has gone by without certificates
I've ordered arriving, biting my nails and looking for other things to
do in the meantime. I'm an obsessive when it comes to research :-)

Kay

- - -

All replies to newsgroup thank you
--------------------------------------------
A good end cannot sanctify evil, nor must
we ever do evil that good may come of it.
Force may subdue, but Love gains, and he
that forgives first wins the laurel.

William Penn 1644-1718
-----------------------------------------
Kay Robinson
Give all you can, Take only what you need
Q
2006-09-05 02:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jill
Post by Steve Bamford
As another observer of this discussion, isn't this a bit over the top?
I had carefully read all her posts before responding
She came here without doing any preparatory work at all -- nadda
Nada, not "nadda."
Post by Jill
She is a professional researcher for goodness sake
Is she?

People who make queries of the kind Miss Pearcey has been making are general
called "producers" or "production assistants."
Post by Jill
As a newbie here not so many years ago and still VERY much a novice at all
this I empathise with the novice point of view
On the contrary, you appear to have a severe empathy deficit.
Post by Jill
I suppose that because I trained as a researcher [unfortunately rusty], I
spend my days and nights "helping" beginners and novices in other fields of
life, and I have lurked here for several years I can see many of the
different points of view.
She's not a researcher, as such. Either she is a producer, or she does the
legwork for a producer, which includes research.
Post by Jill
This environment is very strange and artificial. Its not simply a place to
put in dumb questions and get each and every one answered day in and day out
by unpaid professionals. Bear in mind some of the folks here [ and their
equivalent on other special interest groups] are the top of their field. If
you wanted to get the equivalent advice on the open market you would be
talking £50 - £200 an hour!!
In that case, they should offer their professional services to Miss
Pearcey's company via private email. I'm sure her employers aren't looking
for freebies, and would be happy to pay a genuine expert.
Post by Jill
Its articifial because we all communicate in writing only but its an
informal place where people get to know others so the writing stops being as
formal as it might be. After a while intonation can be inferred if you are
familiar with someones style. Any new person coming into this fluid and
vibrant community has to tune their ear into the moods of the regulars. Its
like being a new person in a village pub. The response here is a darn sight
more polite to folks who have no manners than it would be in that scenario.
I really don't think that she had any intention of joining SGB as a
community. She had a reasonable query and this seemed like a plausible
place to make it. How was she to know that she was entering the lunatic
world of SGB, where even the most innocent statement is treated as the black
utterances of a depraved imagination?
Post by Jill
Post by Steve Bamford
It does not seem unreasonable to me to seek help from a newsgroup
alongside whatever other research you're doing. If people don't want
to offer free advice they have the option of not responding.
I quite agree with you and for those folks who are working away at their
family histories at what ever level this is just about the most amazing
place to be
MP was not - she was a professional media researcher working on a project
hoping to get as much work done for her without doing the very basics
herself. This was plain from the first post.
Why was it plain? Is she supposed to learn how to do genealogical research
in order to ask a question about locating a researcher?

Is a person supposed to reinvent the spoon every time he sits down to
dinner?
Post by Jill
I have had the same on the phone time and again in "my" professional life. I
am increasingly astonished at the inability of any media researcher to
engage even the most basic of grey cells. I will admit that this may have
coloured my reply a little.
As a chicken farmer/researcher, you are certainly entitled to your opinion
about how TV producers put together proposals.
Post by Jill
I really look forward to hearing of your [and everyone elses] genealogical
problems for the wonderful folks here to untangle.
Its a fascinating hobby and completely addictive.
Again, I don't think that Miss Pearcey is interested in becoming a genealogy
addict.

Maybe it was not clear to you, but her goal is apparently to put together a
TV show.
Post by Jill
Each of us will learn something from everyone elses questions. Even if it is
only that media researchers need a great deal better training before they
get paid to do their job - or that any amateur genealogist would do it a
great deal better
<grin>
I guess you think you could do her job better than she does, right? -- Q
Post by Jill
regards Jill Bowis
Surnames search
Senior, Ashworth, Pulman, Crossland, Ambler, Neutkens, Hebblethwaite,
Nuttal, Taylor
Mair, Brown [ABS], Lawrie, Sutherland, Rainey, Hunter, Pittendriech, Sumner,
Moss, Houghton, Hampson, Owen, Smethurst,
Lister, Vaughan, Maltby, Tomlinson, Stewart[London], Yabbicom,
Smith[Leicester], Beaumont, Gibson, Wickings
Bowis, Palin, Parish, Foster, Newlove, Yabbicom, Goodall, Stewart [Paisley],
MacKinlay, Watt, Green, Smith, Weir, Hair, tentative one name : Bowis
www.bowis.co.uk One place: Ardchattan, Argyll www.benderloch.org.uk/forum
Graeme Wall
2006-09-08 10:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q
Post by Jill
Post by Steve Bamford
As another observer of this discussion, isn't this a bit over the top?
I had carefully read all her posts before responding
She came here without doing any preparatory work at all -- nadda
Nada, not "nadda."
Post by Jill
She is a professional researcher for goodness sake
Is she?
People who make queries of the kind Miss Pearcey has been making are
general called "producers" or "production assistants."
Don't make assumptions based on American experience, British TV works
differently in a lot of cases. She would certainly not be a 'producer' and
probably not a production assistant[1] whose duties tend to be more of an
organisational and logistic nature.

To confuse the issue further there are differences between BBC and ITV usage
in these areas. Not to mention the importation of Australian/American usages
by Sky.

Having said that, many tv researchers tend to have journalistic training,
unless they are specialists.

[1] Abbreviated, inevitably, to PA so on one production you can have a
studio PA (production assistant) doing things like production timing, shot
calling etc; the PA (producer's assistant) carrying out various support
duties for the producer and the Head of Department's PA (personal assistant)
dealing with the admin work. Sometimes it amazes me that any programme makes
it to transmission :-)
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Q
2006-09-09 02:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Q
Post by Jill
Post by Steve Bamford
As another observer of this discussion, isn't this a bit over the top?
I had carefully read all her posts before responding
She came here without doing any preparatory work at all -- nadda
Nada, not "nadda."
Post by Jill
She is a professional researcher for goodness sake
Is she?
People who make queries of the kind Miss Pearcey has been making are
general called "producers" or "production assistants."
Don't make assumptions based on American experience, British TV works
differently in a lot of cases. She would certainly not be a 'producer' and
probably not a production assistant[1] whose duties tend to be more of an
organisational and logistic nature.
In American TV, the term "producer" takes in a lot of territory, including
doing no work at all.

A news magazine type of show generally utilizes several producers who are in
charge of the respective segments. The people who do the legwork for
producers can be called just about anything, including assistant producer,
production assistant, or secretary. Aside from making phone calls or
posting enquiries to the internet, these people usually have duties that are
not related to research at all.
Post by Graeme Wall
To confuse the issue further there are differences between BBC and ITV usage
in these areas. Not to mention the importation of Australian/American usages
by Sky.
Having said that, many tv researchers tend to have journalistic training,
unless they are specialists.
[1] Abbreviated, inevitably, to PA so on one production you can have a
studio PA (production assistant) doing things like production timing, shot
calling etc; the PA (producer's assistant) carrying out various support
duties for the producer and the Head of Department's PA (personal assistant)
dealing with the admin work. Sometimes it amazes me that any programme makes
it to transmission :-)
So how is this so different from American TV? -- Q
Graeme Wall
2006-09-09 07:51:53 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Q
Post by Graeme Wall
Don't make assumptions based on American experience, British TV works
differently in a lot of cases. She would certainly not be a 'producer'
and probably not a production assistant[1] whose duties tend to be more
of an organisational and logistic nature.
In American TV, the term "producer" takes in a lot of territory, including
doing no work at all.
Well that's one thing in common :-)
Post by Q
A news magazine type of show generally utilizes several producers who are
in charge of the respective segments.
Those could be editors in UK, but see my strictures on different
organisations with different usages.
Post by Q
The people who do the legwork for producers can be called just about
anything, including assistant producer, production assistant, or secretary.
In UK those are generally different jobs and certainly wouldn't include
secretary even if the work involved secretarial dutues.
Post by Q
Aside from making phone calls or posting enquiries to the internet, these
people usually have duties that are not related to research at all.
Post by Graeme Wall
To confuse the issue further there are differences between BBC and ITV
usage in these areas. Not to mention the importation of
Australian/American usages by Sky.
Having said that, many tv researchers tend to have journalistic training,
unless they are specialists.
[1] Abbreviated, inevitably, to PA so on one production you can have a
studio PA (production assistant) doing things like production timing,
shot calling etc; the PA (producer's assistant) carrying out various
support duties for the producer and the Head of Department's PA (personal
assistant) dealing with the admin work. Sometimes it amazes me that any
programme makes it to transmission :-)
So how is this so different from American TV? -- Q
You have your own sources of confusion!

The two TV industries have widely different backgrounds, American TV grew out
of the film industry, British out of theatre. <caveat: an enormous
generalisation>
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Eve McLaughlin
2006-09-05 18:06:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Bamford
If you look at "miss p"'s earlier postings in this and and other threads you
might understand why she intended up getting angry having started out very
polite and appreciative.
She started out demanding that someone else do her 'research' for a
television compnay for her, in pursuit of what seemed to many an
undesirable progamme. When she did not get this work done, she became
abusive to those who refused to help. It doesn't sound as if she was
prepared to put in any work personally - but would not have turned down
the pay.
Post by Steve Bamford
Responding to rudeness and abuse in like manner
may not be advisable,
It isn't, if you are on the scrounge.
--
Eve McLaughlin

Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
Steve Bamford
2006-09-06 08:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eve McLaughlin
Post by Steve Bamford
If you look at "miss p"'s earlier postings in this and and other threads you
might understand why she intended up getting angry having started out very
polite and appreciative.
She started out demanding that someone else do her 'research' for a
television compnay for her, in pursuit of what seemed to many an
undesirable progamme.
She didn't "demand", she politely asked
Post by Eve McLaughlin
When she did not get this work done, she became
abusive to those who refused to help.
She became abusive (which I accepted was unwise) having been provoked by a
number of rather insulting responses e.g. calling her a "lousy researcher"
and referring to her query as "daft". I suspect many of us would respond
negatively to such comments.
Jill
2006-09-06 09:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Bamford
Post by Eve McLaughlin
She started out demanding that someone else do her 'research' for a
television compnay for her, in pursuit of what seemed to many an
undesirable progamme.
She didn't "demand", she politely asked
This is a professional researcher and I quote
"I want to know if there are any people in the UK today who are of
descendants of the royal family by being a bastard etc"
This was after SHOUTING in the subject which is a good way of putting folks
off in the first place.
And was the second time of asking which had been "fully" replied to, with a
great deal of information to follow up.

Every indication in this and the following posts indicated that she had not
even googled the topic which throws up thousands of leads.

To add insult to injury she followed this up requesting details on a highly
esteemed genealogist - once again showing that she preferred others to do
her work instead of the simplest googling.

I am sorry you feel mss p has been hard done by but this is a place to come
with problems once you have at least tried to solve them yourself. Or direct
simple questions. If folks answer then asking the same question within a
month showing no signs of having learnt anything from the help given is
bound to rankle, especially when the questioner is being paid.
--
regards
Jill Bowis
www.benderloch.org.uk/forum - Ardchattan history, geology, ecology,
genealogy, weather, webcam, local forum
www.kintaline.co.uk - where we are, what we do: Kintaline Plant and Poultry
Centre
Lesley Robertson
2006-09-01 15:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss p
Well I'm amazed by the fury I have created and I apologise for being a
'lousy' researcher here to dumb down your entertainment viewing on the
box. I am sure you are all asked, on the whole, to do things in your
job you may not necessarily like or agree with. I am sure you often
just get on with the said task in hand as I am too. This is a subject I
know nothing of and am simply having a go.
I am trying to do my job to the best of my abilities and utilise the
internet - some of you have been incredibly helpful and I thank you
very much. As for the rest of you who have savaged my enquiries - noone
is forcing you to read my posts, and as I am assuming you are all
adults, I think you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. Go take
your internet bullying elsewhere.
OK, I've re-read my message, and that of Chris. I can't see what they
contain that triggered this response, or what can be constituted as
bullying. I don't think that I've commented on your query at all...
Lesley Robertson
Post by miss p
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Chris Watts
One problem that is generally avoidable is failure to check the info.
How
often have I heard of people being asked to contribute to a programme or
article - and offering to check the result for errors. This has always been
refused on the grounds that it would contravene editoriial freedom.
Yes,
and guess what - the result is full of errors.
How often also are we told that time is of the essence. Excepting, of
course hot news stories, this is usually the result of
somebody,somewhere
in
the media, not being able to plan. We all have limited time but why are
media requests are always "required yesterday"!
I've had occaision to give interviews several times over the last couple of
years and have always only agreed on the condition that I will be given a
chance to check for errors (specifically factual errors, not opinions I
don't like, etc). In return I guarantee that if the article arrives by email
at a specified time, I will drop everything and check it immediately -
thereby avoiding the speed problem. It's always worked up to now - if they
don't agree, I don't do the interview... Of course, attitudes may be more
sensible in the scientific press!
Lesley Robertson
miss p
2006-09-01 15:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Lesley yoiu were not included in my response. As I said, some people
had been helpful
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by miss p
Well I'm amazed by the fury I have created and I apologise for being a
'lousy' researcher here to dumb down your entertainment viewing on the
box. I am sure you are all asked, on the whole, to do things in your
job you may not necessarily like or agree with. I am sure you often
just get on with the said task in hand as I am too. This is a subject I
know nothing of and am simply having a go.
I am trying to do my job to the best of my abilities and utilise the
internet - some of you have been incredibly helpful and I thank you
very much. As for the rest of you who have savaged my enquiries - noone
is forcing you to read my posts, and as I am assuming you are all
adults, I think you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. Go take
your internet bullying elsewhere.
OK, I've re-read my message, and that of Chris. I can't see what they
contain that triggered this response, or what can be constituted as
bullying. I don't think that I've commented on your query at all...
Lesley Robertson
Post by miss p
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Chris Watts
One problem that is generally avoidable is failure to check the info.
How
often have I heard of people being asked to contribute to a programme or
article - and offering to check the result for errors. This has always been
refused on the grounds that it would contravene editoriial freedom.
Yes,
and guess what - the result is full of errors.
How often also are we told that time is of the essence. Excepting, of
course hot news stories, this is usually the result of
somebody,somewhere
in
the media, not being able to plan. We all have limited time but why are
media requests are always "required yesterday"!
I've had occaision to give interviews several times over the last couple of
years and have always only agreed on the condition that I will be given a
chance to check for errors (specifically factual errors, not opinions I
don't like, etc). In return I guarantee that if the article arrives by email
at a specified time, I will drop everything and check it immediately -
thereby avoiding the speed problem. It's always worked up to now - if they
don't agree, I don't do the interview... Of course, attitudes may be more
sensible in the scientific press!
Lesley Robertson
Kay Robinson
2006-09-01 08:50:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:12:28 +0100, John Cartmell
Post by John Cartmell
Post by Roy Stockdill
Eve is, of course, right in a sense when she says that television doesn't
much go in for scholarly research and aims at the lowest common
denominator. Unfortunately for her and those who think like her, that is
the business television is largely in, just as are newspapers. They have to
pull in the punters, ie audiences, otherwise they wouldn't make any money
because they wouldn't be able to sell advertising space and they would very
quickly go out of business. So what are they supposed to do?
Do their job better.
It's easier to do a crap job following standard tabloid 'rules' - make up your
mind before you leave the office and get quotes to fit. It's hard to make
programmes that are both factually correct and will keep the 'I am bored'
groups interested. It's even harder to make a programme that also satisfies
those who are really interested in the subject. Without a support team
teachers all over the world do the equivalent task every day for 5, 6, 7, or 8
lessons a day and also have the problem of negative feedback whilst they're
actually presenting their material.
If the programmers cannot do their job they should let someone else do it.
Whilst they are producing the current average they're being paid for not doing
their job.
NB There are exceptions and there are reasons outside the control of the
individual programme makers - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't demand the
very highest quality.
I'm in total agreement there. The fact is that TV companies do employ
researchers, however, these seem to be people woth media studies
qualifications who appear not to be able to look up anything in a
reference library, much prefering to ask on a group such as this or
look things up on sites like wikpedia [sp]. I'm often shocked at the
silly errors so-called intelligent presenters make on TV, as for the
'researchers' who work on soaps, they're just a joke, they live in
schoolkids fantasy land. Most don't seem to know the geography and/or
placenames in the area in which they live and/or work, let alone how
to pronounce names of places.

Kay

- - -

All replies to newsgroup thank you
--------------------------------------------
A good end cannot sanctify evil, nor must
we ever do evil that good may come of it.
Force may subdue, but Love gains, and he
that forgives first wins the laurel.

William Penn 1644-1718
-----------------------------------------
Kay Robinson
Give all you can, Take only what you need
Chris Watts
2006-09-01 09:23:30 UTC
Permalink
I'm often shocked at the silly errors so-called intelligent presenters
make on TV.

...and that includes the likes of Jeremy Paxman who sneer at contestants on
University Challange, when they fail to answer some obscure "arts" question,
but cannot pronounce even the simplest scientific term and expresses extreme
surprise when anyone can answer a scientific question! What so-called
intelligent person cannot pronounce "cation" - Paxman, of course!

Chris
Eve McLaughlin
2006-09-01 11:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Eve is, of course, right in a sense when she says that television doesn't
much go in for scholarly research and aims at the lowest common
denominator.
OK, working with the most 'interesting' elements of a given story to
catch the attention is one thing. A good historian can make anything
interesting, once attention is caught.
This particular case seems to be aiming even lower. Madam does not
seem to be working on what could be an interesting programme about the
ups and downs of persons descended from the royal family (left or
right) in the past, but appears to want 'current' people who claim they
are royal bastards. And anyone gullible enough to believe that Margaret,
under the eye of the paparazzi, would have gone through with a pregnancy
after she had split from Snowdon, hasn't the intelligence to make good
anything.
One wonders if she and her masters will go the whole hog and study
Harry.
--
Eve McLaughlin

Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
Verminator
2006-08-29 22:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss p
If anyone has ANY names past or present ( I can work back or forth) I
would really appreciate it?
Just check Paul Theroff's file on Descendants of King James I & VI.
You'll find most, if not all, of the descendants of William IV-
including many who have no title at all

http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/index.html

--
The Verminator
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...