GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-09 > 1189197508


From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Duke of Buccleuch Dies
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 06:38:28 +1000
References: <1188922359.776640.75360@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com><1189109280.428002.179550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com><LmZDi.311$YE3.666@eagle.america.net><46e0e321$0$5080$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr><ZRaEi.38114$ph7.13097@newsfe5-win.ntli.net><46e14d44$0$25927$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr><1QcEi.45712$S91.12211@newsfe7-win.ntli.net><46e166dd$0$27413$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr><ZOdEi.45940$rr5.30721@newsfe1-win.ntli.net><1189181488.457595.226800@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com><InfEi.51177$1G1.25809@newsfe2-win.ntli.net><4ohEi.6$FF5.265@eagle.america.net><1189195260.712915.101560@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com><WhiEi.10$FF5.124@eagle.america.net><1189196550.072687.296770@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>


"Surreyman", like most broken-down Englishmen, with many frustrations, wants
to tie his lineage to a Noble, Royal or Retainer -- as in "Robert le
Despenser".

He wants to find such links for his own aggrandizement -- whereas I do it
for the FUN of it -- realizing that such descents are available to millions
who are willing to do the tracing.

TENS of MILLIONS of us are descended from William The Conqueror himself --
so, making some silly-buggers statement about an invented Companion of the
Conqueror is ludicrous -- but amusing -- and "Surreyman" provides Fair
Entertainment -- although he's not a Top Banana, such as Stewart.

Telling us about a "Robert le Despenser" that someone ELSE made up and
trying to hook himself to it is just as bad as inventing a Companion of the
Conqueror himself.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"David" <> wrote in message
news:...

> On Sep 7, 3:13 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <> wrote:

>> Bingo!
>>
>> This "Robert le Despenser" as a Companion Of The Conqueror sounds like
>> wishful thinking on "Surreyman's" part.
>>
>> Par For The Course...
>>
>> DSH
>
> That's a little harsh -- the story that a Spencer came over with
> William the Conqueror may be erroneous, or even fraudulent, but it's
> not as if Surreyman is personally making it up.



This thread: