GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-12 > 1196950394


From: Renia <>
Subject: Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: John Peck - Robert Peck
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:13:14 +0200
References: <mailman.318.1196944670.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.318.1196944670.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>


Bill Arnold wrote:
> BA: I am sure Douglas Richardson when he compiles his *Charlemagne Ancestry*
> which will be a block-buster best-seller here in the *States* will include the
> *Magruder* line back to the Scots. And you and Will and jump on board. I note
> Will has taken note. I am only a tad little disappointed that it took me *dropping*
> the Peck Football for you to pick it up....
>
> Renia: I'm not a Peck. I'm not even American. I have no Peck relatives
> whatsoever so I would never have picked up on that article but for your
> stupid attitude to genealogy. Had you actually read and understood that
> article, you would never have posted those 600 ridiculous posts. So, do you still
> think the Pecks descend from Charlemagne?
>
> BA: Interesante. So, now, you state you read an article on the Pecks because
> of my "stupid attitude to genealogy." That was your *stated* motivation? You
> wrote that, not me. I am *underwhelmed* by such a stupid attitude toward
> genealogy by you, not me. I not only *read* the 1930s articles in the Register,
> I also understood them.

Apparently, you didn't, because you ranted and raved, as you have done
in this post, that people aren't gentlemen and scholars if they don't
agree with you.

The article makes it quite clear the Suffolk Pecks do not descend from
the Yorkshire Pecks. The article even gives a possible father for Robert
Peck, the elder. You have ignored all this.

> I stated flatly two things, neither of which you now
> acknowledge in your ad hominem: (1) I read it and acknowledged the *FACTS*

Only those *FACTS* which you choose to be facts. Anything else, as you
say below, is *OPINION*.

> therein but did not agree with all the *OPINIONS* of the authors about those
> facts. And now, my "600 ridiculous posts" have got your dander up and snarly
> and you wish me to say something gentlemanly about your ad hominems. Nah.

As to ad hominems, you are the master of them. I spent some time
studying the article for you, made some points, and waited for your
answer so we could discuss it. Nothing.

> No. Zilch. Zippo. Nada. No way, Jose. Forgeddabouditt! And in answer to my
> thoughts about the Peck descent from Charlemagne? Sheesh. That is a tough
> one. As a gentleman and a scholar, I find because of the hard work of John
> Higgins, Nat Taylor, and others who emailed me off-list, and spoke to me on
> the telephone, I would have to tell you as a naif among giants in medieval
> genealogy: I do *not* know.

Fair comment.


> I do know the following: there is in the Brit Lib
> a Peck Pedigree which alleges it; the parentage of Robert Peck, the Elder,
> the grandfather of gateway ancestor Joseph Peck, emigrant to America in 1638,
> is still in *limbo* and *WILL* be pursued by scholars in perpetuity as long as
> the archives of gen-medieval exist: so help me < G >!

And this is just what I tried to help you to do in my series of posts on
the subject. But you didn't reply or seem to want to discuss it.

> Once all extant records
> in England and Scotland and elsewhere which impinge upon this scholarly
> question are studied in depth, court, chancery, deed, wills, IPMs, et al., and
> a final resolution as to the parentage of Robert Peck, the Elder, is established,
> then it might indeed turn out that this Englishman of the 15th/16thC had
> descent from Charlemagne. Who knows? You certainly do not.

No, I don't and I don't really care.

But you have ranted and raved about all this, so I thought I would try
and help you. Now you're ranting and raving again.

I helped you before with some of the Middleton stuff. Now I've looked at
your Pecks for you.

You really are an ungrateful and very rude little man.

Enter ad hominem here:




This thread: