GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-01 > 1073266145
From: (Peter Stewart)
Subject: Re: Britain's Real Monarch
Date: 4 Jan 2004 17:29:05 -0800
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <3FF754A3.7340BB79@scs.uiuc.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <009901c3d265$8496a1a0$1e030043@hppav> <veQJb.77022$aT.email@example.com> <000801c3d2a8$ab74c0c0$1e030043@hppav>
("T. Stanford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne") wrote in message news:<000801c3d2a8$ab74c0c0$>...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Stewart" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 10:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Britain's Real Monarch
> > I wonder, will this thread ever come to an end?
> > Peter Stewart
> Maybe you and I could make a start by stopping? However, I do think that
> discussions of MEDIEVAL Peerage Law would be not only relevant, but helpful.
My interrogatory comment wasn't directed at you in particular - since
I thought the point you had made was worth following up - but to the
everlasting stream of quotes from mass-media ninnies like Tony
Robinson (save for the interesting notes in reply from William Black),
and now queries about visiting museums in Athens & so on....
Chris Phillips & a few others have surely dealt adequately with this
matter, which is based on a speck of old dust floating in thin air.
As the holder of a Scottish earldom, Loudoun would not have been
entitled to a seat in the Lords from that peerage anyway. By the way,
possibly John Steele Gordon's edition of Whittaker's Almanack
pre-dates the seperation of this title from the marquessate of