GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-05 > 1179316507


From: John Brandon <>
Subject: Re: Fw: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 202 (Chanc. Proc. Supplement,Eliz. I)
Date: 16 May 2007 04:55:07 -0700
References: <mailman.2192.1179184206.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com><1179184660.518338.144490@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com><1179200062.050174.16040@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com><1179255554.645240.172130@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com><1179256019.864214.296880@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com><1179256118.184563.122700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com><1179256509.182675.275770@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com><1179256884.672530.290000@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com><1179271581.967325.310950@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com><1179275223.149385.262270@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1179275223.149385.262270@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>


> I make no claim to speak for anyone else, unlike Brandon, but I
> imagine Leslie might not be entirely displeased to have it known by
> the newsgroup that he no longer (if he once did) cares to communicate
> privately with such a reprobate.
>
> Peter Stewart

He got a number of good benefits out of it, I think (being able to
boast a little to someone presumably interested about articles of his
coming out). On the other hand, even though he had personally
inspected the St. Katherine-by-Tower parish register on microfilm in
Salt Lake City, I wasn't allowed to know the exact wording of the
Gifford-Temple marriage record, because he was going to write it up in
a note to be published, along with some other marriages. Two years
later, I mildly ask about this and find out he's no longer doing it!

Once I asked for a copy of a short article from TAG--but no, that was
too much trouble.

So it was all very one-sided.


This thread: