User talk:RosePlantagenet

I see you haven't been officially welcomed to Wikipedia yet.

Hello, RosePlantagenet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Rhion 13:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Rose[edit]

I have observed you on several discussion pages. Did you state that you a direct descendant of Robert the Bruce? 216.78.55.88 (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am direct descendent of Robert the Bruce. RosePlantagenet (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments on talk pages[edit]

Hi, Rose, I just read your coments on AnI, and wanted to make a little comment. It's usually not a good idea to remove or otherwise edit another user's comments from a talk page, except your won. It's better to have an admin do that for you, after they have decided that it is a personal attack. Hope this helps, and if you need any more assistance, please feel free to call on me. Jeffpw 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all your assistance. Yes, I will not be removing their comments again, I had just about had it with them deleting people's comments and talking down to people. It certainly does not belong on this site. I will definitly contact you in the future if I need any advise, you were a big help. RosePlantagenet 14:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, when others are annoying enough to interfere with your editing? I'll go take a look at the article history myself, but you shouldn't be afraid to report somebody who seems to be editing badly. Jeffpw 15:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Descent[edit]

Do not revert to re-add that information. That article was, prior to the removal, in a disgraceful state. I have tried to fix it by means of altering within, and you have stonewalled me. It does not matter - as it stood, it was in an appalling condition, riddled with OR, speculation, Opinion, POV, lack of references. It needs to be swept back to the minimum of proveable information, and then have sourced data readded. Wikipedia will not tolerate your proliferation of opinion and Original Research. Please see the talk page explanation of the changes, and if you want to restore information, track down citations. Michaelsanders 19:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT remove the comments of other users from your talk page. It is a breach of wikipedia etiquette. I have discussed the reversions/removals - you are the one who claimed you weren't going to discuss the issue. As for my blocks - the first was for correcting a persistent editor who kept changing a spelling of 'defence' to 'defense' in a British-convention article. The second was for complaining about another editor in an edit war. You are likely to suffer the same fate as myself in this case. Well done, and stop removing my comments. Michaelsanders 20:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Descent. Again[edit]

Good to have been working with you, cousin - the article's looking rather better now, and if we can both work to control our tempers and work to the betterment of articles in general, we should do well.

How are you descended from the Plantagenets, anyway? Michaelsanders 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in terms of intermarriage, I can hardly cast aspersions - the family of my great-great grandmother, Ann Bruce, came from the Shetlands, where everyone intermarried. Thus, I am descended from the same people several times over (in addition, my grandmother (Ann's granddaughter) and my grandfather (no traceable royal descent) are vaguely related somehow - some other ancestors came from the same benighted village in northern Wales). In terms of royal descent, my great-grandfather 14 times removed (thank you Brothers Keeper!) was James V of Scotland (Margaret Tudor's son) - I'm descended from the Earl of Orkney, his illegitimate son (by Euphemia Elphinstone), whose descent winds through most Shetland genealogy - in particular, his great-granddaughter married one of my Bruce ancestors, who was also a descendant of Euphemia by her husband, John Bruce, via her son, Laurence of Cultmalindie (who sired about 30 surviving children, thus making most people of Shetland descent his descendants). In any case, almost everyone with Shetland ancestry is descended from royalty via these connections, so it isn't particularly magnificent.

And then there's my father's family, who until the 1900s were all Russian peasants. And are effectively impossible to trace, which is very galling. Oh well...

On the other hand, if there's ever a massive cull of the world's population, I could be in with a chance of the Scottish throne - it depends whether Thomas Bruce of Clackmannen (the progenitor of all modern Bruces) was a legitimate son of one of Robert I's brothers, or illegitimate. And whether I would be most senior claimant (I wouldn't. Full stop.) And whether anyone (myself included) would care... Michaelsanders 19:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor bastards[edit]

Please see Talk:Katheryn of Berain and tell me what you think. 68.110.8.21 02:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is good to see this kind of consensus, between us. I only hope that fanatics who are obsessed with the lady, find some basis in their claims to be more believable. 68.110.8.21 03:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+++ The most well balanced and superbly researched article on Roland de Vieilleville can be found on www.happywarrior.org/genealogy/roland I agree with the authors comments. BrynLlywelyn 11:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is all speculation. Since, there is no evidence to prove or disprove any of these theories, people are going to choose to believe what they want to believe. And, my feeling is, without that evidence, they have a right too. Although, people state that royalty has no place in our modern time, there is not a person out there who would not like to find some possiblity of it in their family tree. RosePlantagenet 12:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+++Speculation? Roland and his close circle certainly believed that he was the son of Henry Tudur, and no one appears ever to have questioned that. Roland spent twenty five years at Court, much of it as a member of the the household of Henry VII. He was never publically acknowledged to be Henry's son, but there are quite obvious reasons why this was so and he certainly was treated as such. His coat of arms provides the clues, and he possibly was not a 'bastard'.. There is prime source evidence in the Lleweny Papers (see no. 124); the Griffith of Penrhyn Collection (Bangor University Archives); Calendar Patent Rolls; the Letters and Papers Henry VII. In addition contemporary poetry such as one composed in 1535 by Dafydd Alaw who describes Roland as 'a man of kingly line and of earls blood'.BrynLlywelyn 13:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to my question but why are you trying to convince me? I don't care whether he was Henry VII's illegimate son or not, quite frankly. I was simply asked by another editor to state my views. That view, in fairness, looked at both sides of the argument. My views are not something to be bothered by considering I am but one editor out of several on this site. If you feel so strongly about it then add your views to Talk:Katheryn of Berain. Thanks again. RosePlantagenet 15:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]