• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hello from a non-skeptic

I'd really like to hear Charles' views on the research Alice has done (and expended money out of her own pocket) on his family tree.
 
To the best of my knowledge, it was Mary Campbell who married into the Stewarts of Appin. I would love to be able to find out more, but there are very few existing registries. IF John Stewart married Mary Campbell, it would probably have been at the Chruch of Lawers, of which no existing registries remain. This connection, seeing as there was no longer any nobility lineage to it, would not appear in the Burke's peerage, though John Stewart of Appin does, as does the info concerning the Lady of Lawers. I have a baptism record for John Stewart, son to John Stewart and Mary Campbell. Are they one and the same? This is something I am also trying to confirm, but it seems quite probable...

As for Janet Gordon, again to the best of my knowledge she was the daughter of Lord John Gordon and the daughter of Margaret Drummond and King James IV. As she married the 4th Lord of Appin, naturally the current Clan Chief would also be descended from the same. Again IF the connections are correct, for what it is worth I would also be descended of the following:

Via the various marriages and ancestors that all of us hold, among mine I also found both daughters of King Robert I de Brus, three sons and a daughter of King Robert II, an illegitimate son of King Robert III as well as two daughters of King James I. Another discovery that gave me a particularly pleasant sense of pride was that, among my so many ancestors, via the Lady of Lawers’ mother, Jean Colville, is also Sir William “The Brave Heart” Wallace, who gave Scotland its initial impetus for the later independence brought about by Robert de Brus.
Click to expand...

Your genealogy is very beautiful, Alice. It's great fun, isn't it? As I said, to the best of my knowledge the above is true unless proven otherwise. If it is proven to be incorrect, again I stand corrected and will make whatever necessary changes.

I came here with the intention of posing a serious question concerning the effect of consciousness on sub-atomic matter, not to divulge a book, as so many have thought and claimed. As I said to you all, my royalties are being donated to a charity institution, so feel free to have fun without worrying about filling my pockets. Who knows, you might learn something...

http://www.freado.com/book/7923/descendant-of-kings

You say I have not replied to your questions. But I have. I have given you all the indications as to where you might extend any serious research into the matter, including references to books and Chico Xavier's work. He did not condemn a murderer, but absolved an innocent from being unjustly accused. In his thousands of psychographed letters, he gave relatives huge comfort by providing them with details, nicknames and events known only to the family.

I still believe that each "individual entanglement of thought-consciousness" retains its individuality even after physical death, and dresses itself in whatever form of more fluidic matter the Spiritual Realms consist of. Apparently it is some form of "light". Can you again prove me wrong?

Charles
 
Agatha said:
I'd really like to hear Charles' views on the research Alice has done (and expended money out of her own pocket) on his family tree.
Click to expand...

Agatha, I think we've already had his response to my research:

Charles Boden said:
Goodness, have you all nothing better to do? Are you still going at it?

It is possible that the link may indeed be incorrect, as genealogy is always subject to confirmation, but John Stewart of Appin seems to have had a son also by the name of John Stewart with Mary Campbell, daughter to James Campbell, Sherriff of Perthshire. IF my connections are correct, they would have moved to Lawers.

Here is the possible link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_of_Lawers

I have the registry of the baptism of John Stewart (7 July 1645, at Kenmore Parish), son to John Stewart, whom in my view was very possibly the 2nd son of Lord Duncan Stewart. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that my ancestor Angus Steuart (b. 31 July 1715 at Kenmore) appears in "The Jacobites of North East Scotland" of 1745 enlisted as a soldier under Bonnie Prince Charlie's banner as Angus Stuart from Auchnahyle, which is where his 2nd son and also my ancestor Thomas Stuart was born. Angus was most probably with the Stewarts of Appin clan, which appears to confirm the connection. His father, also John Stewart (b. 8 Mar 1688 also at Kenmore), appears as a prisoner after the Jacobite Rising of 1715.

Charles
Click to expand...

He completely ignored the evidence that indicates he is NOT descended from King James IV, and directed us to a Wikipedia article in the which the salient information was added by someone with a Rio de Janeiro IP address. The last paragraph is so irrelevant to his claim he might as well have posted a recipe for chocolate cake.

Charles' problem (well, one of Charles' problems) is that he's spent too long in the company of people who take the most outrageous claims at face value and don't lift a finger to do their own reseach. Instead of lurking at JREF for a while to see what he was up against, he threw himself in at the deep end by revealing his woeful ignorance of quantum physics, the Jacqueline Poole murder case, genealogy and the sceptical method. He littered his real name, location, the details of his book and other personal information over the internet and played the persecution card when a simple Google search turned them up.

Although I think it's a crying shame that Charles has devoted twenty years to this nonsense I really don't have much sympathy for him. Earlier this year he was trying to interest a bookshop in arranging a book-signing event http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=186836444542 - as if any bookshop would touch a self-published author with a bargepole! Now, thanks to his own arrogance in thinking he could teach us sceptics a lesson, a review of Descendant of Kings will reach a wider audience than he could have dreamed of. And I suspect he'll find out the hard way that the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity" simply isn't true.
 
Oh dear, our posts have crossed. Never mind.

Charles, before we discuss anything else I'd like confirmation that it WAS you who made the two edits to the Wikipedia "Lady of Lawers" article.
 
Alice, you really do have a chip on your shoulder, don't you? I'll gladly invite you to look at my tree if you would like to and it is so important to you. And yes, I added the info on the Lady of Lawers as it deems correct.
 
Charles Boden said:
I still believe that each "individual entanglement of thought-consciousness" retains its individuality even after physical death, and dresses itself in whatever form of more fluidic matter the Spiritual Realms consist of. Apparently it is some form of "light". Can you again prove me wrong?

Charles
Click to expand...

I had the proof all ready to post and it was absolutely conclusive, but an invisible pink dragon eated it.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, Charles. If you want this drivel about thought-consciousness and spiritual realms to be taken seriously then you have to provide the evidence.
 
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, Charles. If you want this drivel about thought-consciousness and spiritual realms to be taken seriously then you have to provide the evidence.
Click to expand...

How come? This is precisely the point: it still cannot be proven.
 
Charles Boden said:
How come? This is precisely the point: it still cannot be proven.
Click to expand...
When we know that 2+2=4 and have known so for thousands of years and have repeatedly shown it empirically, then it is not incumbent on us to show that 2+2 != 5 just because somebody comes along and claims it does. We ask him to show his math; if he cannot, then it is simply someone tossing about nonsense.

Can you show how you reached your hypothesis? And since you're talking about physics, I suggest you do it with math.
 
Charles Boden said:
Alice, you really do have a chip on your shoulder, don't you? I'll gladly invite you to look at my tree if you would like to and it is so important to you. And yes, I added the info on the Lady of Lawers as it deems correct.
Click to expand...
A chip on her shoulder because she's spent time investigating and attempting to confirm to your claims?

If your claims are accurate and you are indeed descended from Bonnie Prince Charlie, you should be thanking Alice Shortcake on your knees for helping you to prove this.

If your claims are inaccurate, and Alice's research can show you where you are mistaken, you should be thanking her even more for saving you from believing nonsense.

Either way, you owe her a debt of gratitude, not snide remarks.
 
Charles Boden said:
I came here with the intention of posing a serious question concerning the effect of consciousness on sub-atomic matter
Click to expand...
It was pointed out to you on page one that this was the wrong subforum for that question, and you were directed to the science subforum. Instead of asking the mod to move your thread, or starting a new one in the correct subforum, you chose to fill this thread with anecdotes about ouija boards, psychics and reincarnation. So you have no one to blame for the direction the discussion you initiated took except yourself.
 
Charles Boden said:
Alice, you really do have a chip on your shoulder, don't you? I'll gladly invite you to look at my tree if you would like to and it is so important to you. And yes, I added the info on the Lady of Lawers as it deems correct.
Click to expand...

No, I don't have a chip on my shoulder. YOU started the ball rolling by telling us about your supposed royal ancestry, YOU should be able to provide solid evidence for it. The only part of your family tree that interests me is the section from Janet Gordon to John Stewart.

Charles Boden said:
To the best of my knowledge, it was Mary Campbell who married into the Stewarts of Appin...This connection, seeing as there was no longer any nobility lineage to it, would not appear in the Burke's peerage, though John Stewart of Appin does, as does the info concerning the Lady of Lawers. I have a baptism record for John Stewart, son to John Stewart and Mary Campbell. Are they one and the same? This is something I am also trying to confirm, but it seems quite probable...
Click to expand...

Charles, wouldn't you agree that it's quite a jump from a rather vague folk tale involving a male member of the Gordons and a female member of the Stewarts of Appin to the completely different version you provided? You use the phrase "to the best of my knowledge" - where did this knowledge come from and why didn't you cite it on Wikipedia?

Could you please direct me to the page(s) of Burke's Peerage in which John Stewart is clearly identified as a son of Duncan Stewart, 6th (why did you later change it to 5th?) of Appin who DIDN'T die without issue? I must have missed it.

As for Janet Gordon, again to the best of my knowledge she was the daughter of Lord John Gordon and the daughter of Margaret Drummond and King James IV...As I said, to the best of my knowledge the above is true unless proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

You're using that phrase again. Where does this knowledge come from? According to the Burke's Peerage "Stewarts of Appin" section Janet Gordon was the daughter of the 3rd Earl of Huntley. The entry for "Huntley" doesn't list any daughters amongst the 3rd Earl's children (many aristocratic family trees of that era didn't bother mentioning daughters), but it does record that it was his son John who married Margaret Stewart, King James IV's illegitimate daughter. This would make Janet Margaret's sister-in-law, not her daughter, in which case she was obviously not descended from James IV.

Do you not see the problem here, or are you claiming that Janet was the daughter of another Earl of Huntley? Because if you move Janet back or forward another generation you're faced with another problem - she was unlikely to have been of child-bearing age when she married Duncan Stewart.
 
Last edited:
So you have no one to blame for the direction the discussion you initiated took except yourself.
Click to expand...

Pixel, I did not post the link to the book here. A member did, and I rode it through. I admit that when coming here I had no idea of what the forum was really about. I can guarantee it has been one of the most unpleasant experiences of my life...

As I said, what I wrote I did so merely with the intention of sharing. And sharing something beautiful, I might add. That "life" is much more than just this which meets the eye. I honestly did not expect that in trying to do so I would have to encounter what I have. On my part, this discussion is indeed ended.

Charles
 
Charles Boden said:
I still believe that each "individual entanglement of thought-consciousness" retains its individuality even after physical death, and dresses itself in whatever form of more fluidic matter the Spiritual Realms consist of. Apparently it is some form of "light". Can you again prove me wrong?

Charles
Click to expand...

I have an invisible unicorn living in my garden.Can you prove me wrong?
 
You came here to share something beautiful? I thought you came here to shake our all-knowing pedestals? You can't have it both ways, Charles. And if this has been one of the most unpleasant experiences of your life,

a) you've led a remarkably pleasant and uneventful life, and

b) you have no-one to blame but yourself.
 
Last edited:
Agatha said:
A chip on her shoulder because she's spent time investigating and attempting to confirm to your claims?

If your claims are accurate and you are indeed descended from Bonnie Prince Charlie, you should be thanking Alice Shortcake on your knees for helping you to prove this.

If your claims are inaccurate, and Alice's research can show you where you are mistaken, you should be thanking her even more for saving you from believing nonsense.

Either way, you owe her a debt of gratitude, not snide remarks.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Agatha, Charles is claiming to be descended from King James IV. He's merely the reincarnation of Bonnie Prince Charlie. ;)
 
Charles Boden said:
Pixel, I did not post the link to the book here. A member did, and I rode it through. I admit that when coming here I had no idea of what the forum was really about. I can guarantee it has been one of the most unpleasant experiences of my life...

As I said, what I wrote I did so merely with the intention of sharing. And sharing something beautiful, I might add. That "life" is much more than just this which meets the eye. I honestly did not expect that in trying to do so I would have to encounter what I have. On my part, this discussion is indeed ended.

Charles
Click to expand...

It never started.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom