Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Meanies™
Approved.
Approved.
Hello from a non-skeptic
- Thread starter Charles Boden
- Start date
FSM
god
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,267
My paranormal ability: summoning Charles with lame posts. Very testable. Even if I wear a blindfold and rotate my computer.
I also can't wait until we get to talk about Charles' book! We are your biggest fan base, Charles.
Alice Shortcake
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,134
Oh, God. Have a look at the Wikipedia article cited by Charles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_of_Lawers
This has "obscure folk tale or ballad" written all over it, is unsupported by references or sources and would not be taken seriously by any researcher. However, I can see why the prospect of being descended from a soothsayer might appeal to you!
Sorry Charles, but this whole thing is a pack of cards you've constructed out a few unconnected facts and an overwhelming need to believe in your royal descent. So you have a baptismal entry for John Stewart, son of another John Stewart
So what? The operative words here are "in my view" and "very possibly". Until you can provide solid evidence that the elder John Stewart had children, which is denied by both the Stewarts of Appin family records and Burke's Peerage, your baptismal entry is meaningless. As for the rest of your comment, look at the words I've bolded:
All I can say is that you have strange ideas about confirmation and connections. You are clutching at straws, just as you did with the other John Stewart - you remember, the son of the 5th Earl of Moray who also died without issue? If the supposed ancestor has the right name, is roughly the right age and lived in approximately the right geographical area you leap to the conclusion that they were of royal descent. Any professional or well-informed amateur genealogist will tell you that this is a recipe for disaster.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that John Stewart did have a wife and children who for some reason are unknown to history and that you are indeed his descendant. That does not make you a descendant of King James IV! You've completely ignored the non-royal ancestry of Janet Gordon, wife of the earlier Duncan Stewart. Burke's Peerage, in its entry for the Stewarts of Appin, identifies her as a daughter of the 3rd Earl of Huntly. It was the 3rd Earl of Huntly's son Lord John Gordon who married King James IV's illegitimate daughter Margaret Stewart. Janet's children had cousins with royal blood but they had none themselves.
Charles, I would have thought that the first place anyone with royal or aristocratic ancestors would look for information is Burke's Peerage and similar volumes. It baffles me that you don't seem to have done this. Also, has it ever occurred to you to get in touch with the current head of the Stewarts of Appin and ask him if the family has any genealogical documents that might shed further light on the matter? It would be interesting to know if he is aware of a family tradition regarding descent from an illegitimate daughter of King James IV, because I've been unable to find any reference to this outside your own claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_of_Lawers
This has "obscure folk tale or ballad" written all over it, is unsupported by references or sources and would not be taken seriously by any researcher. However, I can see why the prospect of being descended from a soothsayer might appeal to you!
Sorry Charles, but this whole thing is a pack of cards you've constructed out a few unconnected facts and an overwhelming need to believe in your royal descent. So you have a baptismal entry for John Stewart, son of another John Stewart
So what? The operative words here are "in my view" and "very possibly". Until you can provide solid evidence that the elder John Stewart had children, which is denied by both the Stewarts of Appin family records and Burke's Peerage, your baptismal entry is meaningless. As for the rest of your comment, look at the words I've bolded:
All I can say is that you have strange ideas about confirmation and connections. You are clutching at straws, just as you did with the other John Stewart - you remember, the son of the 5th Earl of Moray who also died without issue? If the supposed ancestor has the right name, is roughly the right age and lived in approximately the right geographical area you leap to the conclusion that they were of royal descent. Any professional or well-informed amateur genealogist will tell you that this is a recipe for disaster.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that John Stewart did have a wife and children who for some reason are unknown to history and that you are indeed his descendant. That does not make you a descendant of King James IV! You've completely ignored the non-royal ancestry of Janet Gordon, wife of the earlier Duncan Stewart. Burke's Peerage, in its entry for the Stewarts of Appin, identifies her as a daughter of the 3rd Earl of Huntly. It was the 3rd Earl of Huntly's son Lord John Gordon who married King James IV's illegitimate daughter Margaret Stewart. Janet's children had cousins with royal blood but they had none themselves.
Charles, I would have thought that the first place anyone with royal or aristocratic ancestors would look for information is Burke's Peerage and similar volumes. It baffles me that you don't seem to have done this. Also, has it ever occurred to you to get in touch with the current head of the Stewarts of Appin and ask him if the family has any genealogical documents that might shed further light on the matter? It would be interesting to know if he is aware of a family tradition regarding descent from an illegitimate daughter of King James IV, because I've been unable to find any reference to this outside your own claims.
Last edited:
Senex
Philosopher
Apology
This title intentionally left blank
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,126
I was really hoping for some predictions from Candyland, but I guess that's never going to happen now. Surely there is a seer living deep in the Holy Gumdrop Mountains that would like to change the world with his inscrutable predictions. Perhaps he could direct us to a new and previously unknown route through the Molasses Swamp of Despair.
Senex
Philosopher
FSM
god
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,267
Hey, summon me with lame posts, blindfolded and with computer rotation I'm testable. Book size is overrated. I owe you two dollars. Many relationships started with less
Most of my relationships have started with me paying much more than 2 dollars for a book (and in this case for Charles' book ...)
And, boy are you fickle! What happened to Sunniva? Faithless cur. You really need to get yourself to a nunnery (and I know, that's Hamlet, not Romeo and Juliet, and massacred besides.)
Senex
Philosopher
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so
FSM
god
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,267
Hooray! And HAIL TO THE KING, baby. Man, a $16.00 PAPERBACK? Sheesh, Charles, take it easy on your fans, wouldja?
And Senex:
Why, sir, I trust I may have leave to speak;
And speak I will; I am no child, no babe:
Your betters have endured me say my mind,
And if you cannot, best you stop your ears.
My tongue will tell the anger of my heart,
Or else my heart concealing it will break,
And rather than it shall, I will be free
Even to the uttermost, as I please, in words.
And Senex:
Why, sir, I trust I may have leave to speak;
And speak I will; I am no child, no babe:
Your betters have endured me say my mind,
And if you cannot, best you stop your ears.
My tongue will tell the anger of my heart,
Or else my heart concealing it will break,
And rather than it shall, I will be free
Even to the uttermost, as I please, in words.
Senex
Philosopher
"Why then tonight let us assay our plot."
Senex
Philosopher
"What's gone and what's past help
Should be past grief."
Should be past grief."
He does this because he already knows that he is of royal descent. All that is left is to find out how ...
Alice Shortcake
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,134
You know, it's a damn shame that the Wikipedia article with which Charles hoped to stun the unbelievers neglected to provided any references. The claim that the soothsayer's hubby was the elusive John, son of Duncan Stewart the 5th of Appin, doesn't seem to be supported anywhere else. In fact quite a few websites reverse the couple's family backgrounds - the Lady of Lawers was a member of the Stewarts of Appin who married a Campbell.
Needless to say no citations are given for this version of the story either.
There's also a wee problem with the chronology of the Lady of Lawers tale. The sources above can't make up their minds whether her marriage took place in 1630 or 1650 (or thereabouts). According to Charles:
If Charles is referring to John's birthdate and not that of his father - I must admit to being confused here, and I sincerely hope that his book is better written than his posts - he would have been between 60 and 80 when he married!
There's really no point in spending any more time on this nonsense, although I think the story of a dour Highland lord and his cute, soothsaying young wife would make a great sitcom. From now on Charles can do his own research - I suggest that he start by investigating the history of the Wikipedia article and finding out where the info regarding John Stewart came from.
Oh, and if we're waxing Shakespearean -
"This is the silliest stuff that ever I heard!"
Needless to say no citations are given for this version of the story either.
There's also a wee problem with the chronology of the Lady of Lawers tale. The sources above can't make up their minds whether her marriage took place in 1630 or 1650 (or thereabouts). According to Charles:
If Charles is referring to John's birthdate and not that of his father - I must admit to being confused here, and I sincerely hope that his book is better written than his posts - he would have been between 60 and 80 when he married!
There's really no point in spending any more time on this nonsense, although I think the story of a dour Highland lord and his cute, soothsaying young wife would make a great sitcom. From now on Charles can do his own research - I suggest that he start by investigating the history of the Wikipedia article and finding out where the info regarding John Stewart came from.
Oh, and if we're waxing Shakespearean -
"This is the silliest stuff that ever I heard!"
Last edited:
An ill-advised choice if you have pre-decided your ancestry.