GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-03 > 1142035765


From: Renia <>
Subject: Re: Ghost of Lady Witham-Jopson-Bolles
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 02:09:25 +0200
References: <s411456e.056@CENTRAL_SVR2> <dusuqu$br7$5@usenet.otenet.gr> <da404fe10603101535s351060bfl50d6169539520596@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <da404fe10603101535s351060bfl50d6169539520596@mail.gmail.com>


steven perkins wrote:

> On 3/10/06, Renia <> wrote:
>
>>Tony Hoskins wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"I'm sure it is useful. But it's not medieval!"
>>>
>>>Not directly, true. But this could be said superficially for much most
>>>of what is discussed here. It's a matter of differentiating the utterly
>>>tangential from the potentially useful, it seems to me. And, I think
>>>"useful" applies to brief mentions of (for instance) 17th century Brits
>>>in America with hitherto unknown or only-beginning-to-be-realized
>>>ancient ancestries - whereby things rapidly and directly become
>>>certifiably "medieval".
>>
>>Well, in that case, why can't we discuss 17th century Brits in Britain?
>>
>
> The newsgroup charter explicitly allows discussion of 17th century
> immigrants to the Americas.

I know.


This thread: