Margaret's birth place
Britannica.com says that b. c. 1045, probably Hungary however The Life and
Wisdom of St. Margaret of Scotland by Lavinia Byrne ISBN: 0-8189-0866-
says Wessex, Amy Steedman references Wessex
St. Margaret "Atheling" , Princess of England appears in quite a few
references. 'Royalty for Commoners', Roderick W. Stuart, 1993 states that
she was Margaret 'Atheling', Princess England, [Queen] b ABT 1043 1045, Of,
Wessex, , England d 16 Nov 1093, Edinburgh Castle, Edinburgh, Mid-Lothian,
Scotland a GED2HTML v3.5-WIN95 (Jul 20 1998) states Wessex. Her marriage
document states Wessex. There are many other references each way. The
Catholic view seem to be Hungary whilst a slightly greater number say
England.
The references given here, in discussion, all seem to feed from The Lost
King of England: The East European Adventures of Edward the Exile Gabriel
Ronay. We even seem to be quoting Ronay's charts and Ronay's references. We
are being advised to read that work. Is that the definitive source? Have
the other historian been looked at? We get so caught up in this thirst to
know that we forget we are a bunch of amateurs playing researchers. Some
people take a question as an attack. This usually happens when they have a
conviction but can not get others to see their point of view, or their facts
are weak. Facts are never just there but they are incorporated by an
imagination that is formed by your previous experience. Memories of the past
are not memories of facts but memories of your imaginings of the facts.
We have three classic ways to react;
1. Legend says, usually a legend created by one person seized by another and
not much of a legend.
2, Just because it is not written down does not mean it did not happen. The
short point 'I believe it.'
3. Obscure the issue by distraction.
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
than lies."
History is a series of interpreted facts. How we group these facts is how
we see history. The same thing happens in the organisation of Corporations.
A friend sent me these definitions of Companies.
an Enron Company
Buy two cows on credit. Sell three cows to your publicly listed company,
using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law's first cousin at the
bank, execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that
you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk
rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman
Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who
sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual
report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Sell
one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving
you with nine cows. No balance sheet is provided.
The public buys you(r) bull.
maybe a French Company You have two cows. You go on strike because you want
three cows.
German? You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years,
eat once a month, and milk themselves
Japan? Start up is two cows. Redesign them so they are one-tenth the size
of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. Create a cow cartoon
called Cow-a-sung and market it World-Wide
Good ole British Company Get two cows, both of them are mad and blame it on
the French.
A Chinese State company would have two cows. It would have 300 people
milking the two cows. It would claim full employment, high bovine
productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported 300 people milking two
cows.
Perhaps Italian You don't know where the cows are so you go to a three
hour lunch.
The Swiss have it down pat They have 5000 cows, none of which belong them.
All of which are kept in a numbered account and they charge others for
storing them.
Anyone want to talk about twins?
Sinclair
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html