ancestry chart

[pianistimo]

if any of you are doing any genealogical research of your families - i found a cool chart here:

www.ancestry.com/save/charts/ancchart.htm

it is a most helpful chart because each person is numbered so you don't get them confused with each other.  and, in the left hand corner you see 'No. 1 on this chart is the same person as No. whatever' so you can add more about any person.

And, if you want to add pages that are numbered according to the person - with children, dates, etc.

at thanksgiving in usa there are several sites that offer some free services for a limited amount of time.  i tried a few 14 day trials and they have been completely free.  i found one of my step-dad's ancestors signature on a ship listing that had name of ship, date of emigration, ages of each person- with the wife and three children's names there too - and my step-dad has been kinda elated about the find.  i'm helping him research his side as he doesn't have time right now to do it himself.

[thalbergmad]

Somebody in my family did a lot of research and found that we were distantly related to the Spencer family of Northampton.

Image me, being related to that Princess Diana object.

[ahinton]

Somebody in my family did a lot of research and found that we were distantly related to the Spencer family of Northampton.

Image me, being related to that Princess Diana object.

No, Thal, I won't inagine that. Do also bear in mind that you're fortunately still alive anyway. I'm not about to make out a case for or against Diana Spencer here, but did you know her personally - sufficiently well to be able to write of her as an "object"? Just curious!...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

No, Thal, I won't inagine that. Do also bear in mind that you're fortunately still alive anyway. I'm not about to make out a case for or against Diana Spencer here, but did you know her personally - sufficiently well to be able to write of her as an "object"? Just curious!...

Best,

Alistair

She did more damage to the Monarchy than Cromwell. I did not know her personally and would not wished to have either.

I would rather be related to the Kray twins.

Thal

[ahinton]

if any of you are doing any genealogical research of your families - i found a cool chart here:

www.ancestry.com/save/charts/ancchart.htm

it is a most helpful chart because each person is numbered so you don't get them confused with each other.  and, in the left hand corner you see 'No. 1 on this chart is the same person as No. whatever' so you can add more about any person.

And, if you want to add pages that are numbered according to the person - with children, dates, etc.

at thanksgiving in usa there are several sites that offer some free services for a limited amount of time.  i tried a few 14 day trials and they have been completely free.  i found one of my step-dad's ancestors signature on a ship listing that had name of ship, date of emigration, ages of each person- with the wife and three children's names there too - and my step-dad has been kinda elated about the find.  i'm helping him research his side as he doesn't have time right now to do it himself.

Each to their own, I suppose; personally, I don't give a monkey's **** to know about my genealogical background - not because I have - or suspect that I might have - anything against it, but simply because it isn't going to tell me about what I'm supposed to do or be. I just have to get on with that. As it happens, my knowledge even of my immediate family background is fairly sketchy, but it's simply not a preoccupation of mine to go digging - I have "better things to do" (pace the text from Norman Douglas in my string quintet...)

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You could have been related to William Wallace or Rob Roy Mcgregor or even Angus Mckaskill.

I find the subject fascinating myself.

Thal

[ahinton]

She did more damage to the Monarchy than Cromwell. I did not know her personally and would not wished to have either.

I would rather be related to the Kray twins.

Thal

Thal, with all due respect, that's utter rubbish! She may have thrown a few spanners into the British monarchcical works, but you surely have only to observe the continued sustainability of the monarchy here to realise that even George Walter Bush on amphetamines would have a problem doing any real damage to it?

If you did not know someone personally and your knowledge of that person is only via the vagaries of what Sorabji used to call the journalistic canaille, how can you be so certain that you would not have wanted to know her? That sounds to me almost as absurd as the "blind faith" of which you have been inown to accuse susanistimo...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

You could have been related to William Wallace or Rob Roy Mcgregor or even Angus Mckaskill.

I find the subject fascinating myself.

Thal

Don't you mean Ian McKaskill? - he of the cold fronts and isobars? Anyway, yes, I could have been related to Sir Walter Scott, Robert Louis Stevenson or even Bonnie Prince Charlie (not the one that was married to Diana Spencer, that is) if it comes to that but, since I don't see how any of that might impact on my running an archive for a Zoroastrian composer or writing the way I do, it doesn't seem all that important - at least, not to me, anyway...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Oh dear, we are in a bad mood tonight.

Not everything that was written about her was true, but some of it must have been.

I don't see why you have to meet someone to dislike them, although it must help.

I dislike David Beckham as well. I guess am not a nice man.

Now, back to the subject in question, I am descended from Adam.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Don't you mean Ian McKaskill?

No, i meant Angus

[ahinton]

Oh dear, we are in a bad mood tonight.

Who's "we, Thal? Not me, for sure!...

Not everything that was written about her was true, but some of it must have been.

I have little reason to doubt either of your statements here, but at the same time I have to say that what I don't know from my own first-hand personal experience I am always at the ready to take with as much salt as may be necessary, especially when the heady mix of monarchy, politics, conspiracy theories et al become easy prey for journalists who know that public "emotion" is a massive bonus (especially since they can "help" create and mould it themselves)...

I don't see why you have to meet someone to dislike them, although it must help.

No, fair enough, up to a point; I admit, for example, that I never met Hitler, Stalin or Mao Zedong and am sure nonetheless that I'd not have cared to do so - but I do think that some of the ways in which certain forms of journalism have moved in the past few decades have ensured that (a) all too many people have come to depend too heavily on the "news media" to assist in the formation of their opinions and (b) prurience - in the form of "the public right to know" - has become God (sorry, "p"). Of course the public has a right to know certain important things, but we should not therefore assume that every member of the public therefore knows preciaely what to do with such knowledge, even in the relatively unlikely event that he/she understands all its nuances.

I dislike David Beckham as well. I guess am not a nice man.

I am not especially enamoured of David Beckham myself - or at least not on the questionable stength of what little I know of him - but then (a) I don't really care, since I do not know him personally and (b) in the grossly unlikely event that he'd bought a ticket to hear Jonathan Powell at The Warehouse 2½ weeks ago I'd regard his money as being as good as anyone else's...

Now, back to the subject in question, I am descended from Adam.

Who - Adam Smith? If so, please take your face of the British £20 note and leave Elgar where he was, OK?...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

No, i meant Angus

OK - so, since I happen not to be able immediately to recall who that is, I'll pass on that one...

I wouldn't worry overmuch about this anyway, especially since I've less that no wish to go stand for President of a politically independent Scotland of some people's imagination...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

agreed that genealogy is a moot point compared to what a person makes of their own lives.  alistair,  you don't know how right you are.  and i think thal agrees.  unfortunately, there are perfectionistic types like me that can't stand it when the foward of their bible is incomplete.  i want one of those honking famly bibles with at least four generations in it.  that way i can claim that i owe title to at least the family bible.  perhaps this all stems from curiousity more than anything.

my dad died when i was young and i met his father (my grandfather) once.  of course, when i went to visit - i had a lot of questions.  now, one side of the family can confuse the other side very much.  my grandma was scottish (visited her about three times) and grandfather irish.  being the snoopy sort i am - at least i obtained his mother and father's name for future reference.  then, i did the same with my grandma.  so, allin all i have four distinct family lines (besides of course - my own mother - who's maiden name was scofield - an entirely english line - of which i claim little - having curly reddish brown hair and freckles as a youth).  kelly - la flamme - brown - mackenzie

tis interesting how  one question leads to more questions.  i tried to follow the laflamme name - as they appearred in new york at the turn of the century and then ended up in vermont (married as kelly).  only recently have i found out about where my grandfather possibly had my dad and his bros and sister.

anyways - what spurred me on, too, was the fact that with my mother's line - there is a HUGe forward in her scofield bible - of all the family line.  i thought it was nice that someone tookthe time to write it all down.  so, now, here i am - wanting to send family bibles to all the cousins who have new families and babies - because 1/2 of them don't know where they originated on the kelly side either.  i mean - besides the first generation.  i actually met the grandpa - got pics - got info.  so i can add to the story before i die.

he turns out to have lived only a city away in north pole, alaska.  north pole, believe it or not - is a borough on the outskirts of fairbanks.  he owned a small one engine plane and had been a hunting guide and had an airport runway right outside his trailer which was advertised as a 'hotel' for hunting/fishing people.  in his younger days he flew bananas to siberia, russia.  most people don't know this - but alaska wasn't formally a memeber of the 'states' until 1957 or so.  before this - it was simply a territory. therefore, people came and went and did what they pleased with relative ease.  i think my grandfather also knew where many gold miners wanted to go.  when i first met him - i thinkhe told me he was a memeber of the polar bear club or at least looked like he was.  very big and tall man - who would not be phased by taking a dip in the bering sea in the middle of winter.  quite the opposite of my grandmother who was extremely short.

when i was told all of this - i dutifully wrote it all down.  sometimes wondering if he was telling me truth or fiction when it came to some parts.  the irish and the scottish tend to elaborate on things.  i suppose what i like about family bibles is the fact that when you go searching for names for children - you can look up past family names and continue a trend. 

[wishful thinker]

Not everything that was written about her was true, but some of it must have been.

One didn't have to read anything about her; simply to watch the nauseous interview that she gave on TV.  It was quite clear that she was a highly manipulative neurotic.  No wonder Prince Charles preferred to talk to the trees. And just because she had aspirations to sainthood (sorry Queen of Hearts, wasn't it?) doesn't make her one.

My first reaction upon hearing that she had died was "the Queen must be relieved" - and was simply astonished at the maudlin carry on the public made...

[ahinton]

agreed that genealogy is a moot point compared to what a person makes of their own lives.  alistair,  you don't know how right you are.  and i think thal agrees.  unfortunately, there are perfectionistic types like me that can't stand it when the foward of their bible is incomplete.  i want one of those honking famly bibles with at least four generations in it.  that way i can claim that i owe title to at least the family bible.  perhaps this all stems from curiousity more than anything.

Now you did ask Thal and I to cite examples a while back, did you not? Here's one (albeit not one of the more long-winded or pernicious ones) wherein you use the subject of genealogy as another excuse to mention the Bible; OK, so I do admit that it's by no means entirely fatuous to do so in this instance, but it does seem as though you're tending to look out for means to introduce Biblical matters at almost any opportunity...

The remainder of what you write here is indeed fascinating.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

One didn't have to read anything about her; simply to watch the nauseous interview that she gave on TV.  It was quite clear that she was a highly manipulative neurotic.  No wonder Prince Charles preferred to talk to the trees. And just because she had aspirations to sainthood (sorry Queen of Hearts, wasn't it?) doesn't make her one.

My first reaction upon hearing that she had died was "the Queen must be relieved" - and was simply astonished at the maudlin carry on the public made...

I am beginning to like you a lot, fellow male from Kent, England.

I detested the creature and still do now. I am dreading the 10th aniversary with the predicted outpouring of national grief.

Hinty will criticise me for this.

Thal

[ahinton]

I detested the creature and still do now. I am dreading the 10th aniversary with the predicted outpouring of national grief.

Hinty will criticise me for this.

Thal

I've no idea what "Hinty" may do. I won't do it myself, however, since it is your prerogative to think of her (and anyone else) just what you choose to think.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

wait.  you have to hear the other side of this sad tale.  when charles and diana were first dating - he was wearing a RING that had the initials of  camilla parker bowles.  she asked him about it - and he refused to get rid of it.  closer to the wedding - it turns out that she finds out she's only there for children.  nothing else.  no love.  and she truly believed he loved her.  what is so sad is that she knew possibly before the day of her marriage - and truly served the KIng and his purposes.  and, she died in the end after giving him two lovely boys.  future kings.  and, william - the most handsome - is truly a kingly person.  i admire him more than his father charles despite portrayals of the media that he is a womanizer or hangs out with lots of women.  he is a young man and is photographed frequently no matter where or when or what.  that is what killed his mother.  lack of privacy and lack of honor for her name.

despite the fact i am american - i would die for the crown.  it's the kingly line of David on earth.  also, the saddest pic i have ever seen is the one of princess diana in front of the taj mahal.  so beautiful and so alone.  prince charles could not change the way he felt about camilla - but he should have married her instead!  sometimes love is not willing to risk all.  therefore it is not true love.

for some on the geneology of the monarchy:  www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2003/throne.html

[thalbergmad]

also, the saddest pic i have ever seen is the one of princess diana in front of the taj mahal. 

Clever, was she not?

[pianistimo]

other way around.  charles went looking for her.  why?  he did not love her.  for her ancestral line.  that is all.  she was a spencer.  it fit.  she could bear his children.  why didn't he tell her he had no love for her?  prearranged marriage, i guess. 

heritage is very very important to the kingly line.  here is something to corroborate the ideas of the kingly lines of the monarchy and where they came from:

www.3dcs.hull.ac.uk/Public/genealogy/royal/catalog.html  have to work on it - but you can see when i find it - it traces them back to Tara - Ireland!

[thalbergmad]

other way around.  charles went looking for her.  why? 

She was young and pretty.

If he had known what she was going to turn into, he would not have bothered.

[pianistimo]

her anorexia and bulemia was a result of being alone too much.  she couldn't handle the pressure and press.  maybe, if he had loved her - she would be queen today.  but, she will always be the 'queen of hearts' to those who loved her.

ps  i see where you come from in terms of 'fair's fair' - but she did it AFTER he did.  and, i rather suspect that it wasn't even because she didn't love him.  i think she loved him to her death - but was hurt that he did not love her outwardly.  although, i do believe that he has come to appreciate her presence more in her absence.  through their sons.

it won't matter anyway - in a while, imo.  i think the war in iraq (and this is speculation only) will cause a fundamental shift in the world governments and how they operate and that it will bring an impetus for a one world order.  there has already been one in the 'underground' machinations of many governments for years.  for instance - when our country was born in 1776 - there were already hints of it from the 'illuminati.'  there's always some issue to the 'blessings of jacob' for those that don't want to see 'manifest destiny' and feel that the world should rightfully be a one world system with no religion at all excepting a worship of the government.  sort of like old rome - with city states and all. 

orwell was probably right.  we don't see plainly what's coming -but we can guess.  the first thing to go will be our economies (after our rights).  then - whomever can help us - ie European Union and get our economic footing going by trading our 'birthright' for a bowl of soup.  our personal information will be tied (or already is) to a worldwide network and we will not be nationals - but internationals - according to this system.

my hero is churchill.  always was and always will be.  he saw the plans for the III reich before it happened and acted quickly and efficiently.  he spoke out - when no one else dared.  he protected the line of David, the monarchy, from utter ruin - and allowed it to continue to this day by being on the offensive.  unfortunately, there is no one speaking today in defense of the monarchy in such a way.  the next ruler for the line of David will be Jesus Christ - if prince william is not crowned.  how can the world continue the way it is now?  God promised the seed of David on the throne FOREVER.  this is a promise.

psalms 24:7 'lift up your heads, o gates, and be lifted up, ancient doors, that the King of GLory may come in! Who is the King of glory?  The Lord strong and mighty, The Lord mighty in battle.  Lift up your heads, o gates, and lift them up, o ancient doors, that the King of GLorymay come in!  Who is this King of GLory?  The Lord of Hosts, He is the King of Glory!'

[wishful thinker]

la la la can't hear you 

I won't now even bother to read your posts, even if they might usefully contibute to the discussion, cause now you've blown it.

Short liners...1 or 2 lines I might read, but this long twaddle, no.

Does this advance your cause (whatever that might be), I think not.  But please do not answer, we have heard enough already!

[pianistimo]

.

[thalbergmad]

Diana, Charles, David, Masons, Churchill, The 3rd Reich, Iraq, God, American Presidents, Jesus, Jacob??

You are making even less sense than ever.

I have only 1 question.

What drugs are you on tonight??

Hope you get better soon.

Thal

[ahinton]

.

Dos this signify that you are "full" and have accordingly "stop"ped?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

She was young and pretty.

If he had known what she was going to turn into, he would not have bothered.

Actually, I do think that pianistmo has a point here. To paraphrase your own words (without the intention to overturn them, for I suspect you might be right apart from the fact that Charles may have done what he was told), "if she had known what he was going to turn into, she might not have bothered.

A lot is made in certain circles about how she was a scheming and manipulative pregnant dog. A lot is also made in certain circles (not necessarily the same ones, of course) that the British monarchical establishment conspired to get rid of her when her continued presence was seen to have become and undue embarrassment to them. One reason why I am inclined to believe neither is that I wouldn't credit either Diana Spencer or the said establishment with the intellectual chutzpah to address and successfully see through either rôle. I think that the marriage between Charles and Diana was probably a grave misfortune - probably in different ways for both parties - and they each suffered as a consequence of it. I very much doubt if Charles really loved Diana. I don;t think that Diana had the brains to approach some of the things in which Charles was interested but in which he himself seemed often ill at ease when trying to express himself publicly.

I happen to know a British composer (whom I will not name here) who some years ago exchanged correspondence with Charles which I have seen; it demonstrates that, for all his (Charles's) well-known head-in-the-past stances on certain artistic matters, he (Charles) demonstrated far greater articulacy and reasoned thinking about certain artistic matters than anyone who had only ever encountered him in the public arena might have credited him with.

It is known that Charles had an interest in his present wife before he ever met Diana and when his present wife was married to someone else. I am not about to make pronouncements about any of this beyond what I have already written, because I do not know any of the persons involved. Far too many people today indulge in prurience just because of the famous "public right to know" nonsense which, whilst OK in principle, makes not the slightest allowance for the fact that most members of the public have less than no idea what to do with any such knowledge even if it is thrust in their faces.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

if she had known what he was going to turn into, she might not have bothered.

She wanted to be a Princess. Not many 19 year old girls would turn down the chance of that.

[ahinton]

She wanted to be a Princess. Not many 19 year old girls would turn down the chance of that.

Perhaps they wouldn't - but do you have any evidence for your statment that this was indeed her specific avowed principal ambition? - and, if so, what is it?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I very much doubt if Charles really loved Diana.

Any evidence for that?

[ahinton]

Any evidence for that?

Not any that proves without doubt that he didn't - which is why I claimed merely to "doubt" that he did, rather than (as some othes might have done) state baldly that he didn't; that said, there was, of course, the infamous occasion on which he omitted not to let himself go on record as answering a question about loving her with the words "it depends what love means!" - which, however anyone looks at it, seems to be a signally obtuse way of uttering an affirmative if that had been his genuine intention...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

the infamous occasion on which he omitted not to let himself go on record as answering a question about loving her with the words "it depends what love means!"

It was a stupid question in the first place.

I dread to think what answers i might give, if i were ever interviewed knowing 20 million people were watching.

[ahinton]

It was a stupid question in the first place.

I dread to think what answers i might give, if i were ever interviewed knowing 20 million people were watching.

Indeed so - but then that's par for the course in such things, is it not? - i.e. stupid questions being asked of people of (sometimes) questionable intelligence in order to elicit stupid answers so that those answers - and the people that give them - can be pilloried by sometimes stupid pseudo-journalists for the non-benefit of a largely stupid public...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Indeed Hinty, I remember giving an interview for BBC Radio kent and gave lots of stupid answers.

Just the pressure of fame i guess.

Thal

[pianolist]

Looking at the posts after a couple of days, I'm amazed at the passion, in either direction, which Diana evokes.

I don't know whether she was a pleasant young woman or not, but I do think she was eaten alive by the British state. As I understand it, she was married at 19 to a man who was sexually infatuated with someone else's wife, and who continued so to be for the whole of his own marriage.

You can't blame Charles, because, as a public figure by birth, he is in an impossible situation. But equally you can't blame a 19-year-old for anything, really. No-one at 19 can possibly make mature judgments about their lives.

I agree that the interview was awful, but that only shows how crass she was at any attempts to manipulate. I'd have thought it was the reaction of a fairly innocent 19-year old who had grown up overnight and become angry through being spurned. Still very immature, but harder as a result of circumstances. I think her performance made the security services feel that she was a threat to the stability of the monarchy, and that she had to be topped. There must be someone who is paid to make such decisions.

But the national mourning left me cold, and I felt like a visitor from another planet when it happened. Murdoch probably had a lot to do with it. I think he enjoys trying to bring down the British spirit.

[ada]

Indeed so - but then that's par for the course in such things, is it not? - i.e. stupid questions being asked of people of (sometimes) questionable intelligence in order to elicit stupid answers so that those answers - and the people that give them - can be pilloried by sometimes stupid pseudo-journalists for the non-benefit of a largely stupid public...

Best,

Alistair

Oh Al don't be so elitist 

[ahinton]

Looking at the posts after a couple of days, I'm amazed at the passion, in either direction, which Diana evokes.

I don't know whether she was a pleasant young woman or not, but I do think she was eaten alive by the British state. As I understand it, she was married at 19 to a man who was sexually infatuated with someone else's wife, and who continued so to be for the whole of his own marriage.

You can't blame Charles, because, as a public figure by birth, he is in an impossible situation. But equally you can't blame a 19-year-old for anything, really. No-one at 19 can possibly make mature judgments about their lives.

I agree that the interview was awful, but that only shows how crass she was at any attempts to manipulate. I'd have thought it was the reaction of a fairly innocent 19-year old who had grown up overnight and become angry through being spurned. Still very immature, but harder as a result of circumstances. I think her performance made the security services feel that she was a threat to the stability of the monarchy, and that she had to be topped. There must be someone who is paid to make such decisions.

You make a lot of good sense here. The only thing with which i am inclined to disagree )not that you state it directly) is the question of how she died. I do not doubt that she may well have been regarded as something of a threat - the public reaction to her death rather tends to support that as a likely fact - but I am disinclined to believe that she was in fact "topped", even iof for no better reason than that the monarchical system, notwithstanding all its financial wealth, probably didn;t even have the competence to organise such a thing properly; if it did, I fell sure that a rather cleaner end would have been visited upon her.

But the national mourning left me cold, and I felt like a visitor from another planet when it happened. Murdoch probably had a lot to do with it. I think he enjoys trying to bring down the British spirit.

It certainly made me suspect that a lot of it had been manipulated, rather as Diana herself had been at times (she was probably almost as incompetent at manipulating others as "the family" would have been at topping her).

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Oh Al don't be so elitist 

Not at all, midear! Like everyone else in life, not all journos are the same! You would surely accept, however - would you not? - that a well known gentleman of Scottish surname but hailing from Australia does have a certain je ne sais quoi when it comes to satisfying a pesonal desire to manipulate the public by telling it that it has a "right to know" just what he wants them to think that they want to know; indeed, he has (albeit not alone) almost developed this into an art form in its own right. One might almost suggest that the journos that have no interest in this kind of thing but want instead to get on with proper journalism have accordingly been made (by those big media cheeses) to appear rather like a kind of élite; nothing wrong with that, it seems to me...(!)

Best,

Alistair