Peter Stewart hasn't posted since 17 December, as far as I can tell. Is he fine? Does anyone have his full email address?

On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 7:43:21 AM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> Peter Stewart hasn't posted since 17 December, as far as I can tell. Is he fine? Does anyone have his full email address?

These types of posts are not really inappropriate. Not logging onto USENET during Christmas holidays for 3 weeks is not a cause of concern.

A quarta-feira, 5 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 21:19:38 UTC, joe...@gmail.com escreveu:
> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 7:43:21 AM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > Peter Stewart hasn't posted since 17 December, as far as I can tell. Is he fine? Does anyone have his full email address?
> These types of posts are not really inappropriate. Not logging onto USENET during Christmas holidays for 3 weeks is not a cause of concern.

I assume you mean "not really appropriate". I am concerned as I know Peter Stewart is elderly and has health issues.
As today is Epiphany, how were your Christmas holidays?

A quinta-feira, 6 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 11:04:50 UTC, Paulo Ricardo Canedo escreveu:
> A quarta-feira, 5 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 21:19:38 UTC, joe...@gmail..com escreveu:
> > On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 7:43:21 AM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > > Peter Stewart hasn't posted since 17 December, as far as I can tell. Is he fine? Does anyone have his full email address?
> > These types of posts are not really inappropriate. Not logging onto USENET during Christmas holidays for 3 weeks is not a cause of concern.
> I assume you mean "not really appropriate". I am concerned as I know Peter Stewart is elderly and has health issues.
> As today is Epiphany, how were your Christmas holidays?

A week later, Peter Stewart still hasn't returned. I am worried.

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:43:45 PM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> A quinta-feira, 6 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 11:04:50 UTC, Paulo Ricardo Canedo escreveu:
> > A quarta-feira, 5 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 21:19:38 UTC, joe...@gmail.com escreveu:
> > > On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 7:43:21 AM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > > > Peter Stewart hasn't posted since 17 December, as far as I can tell.. Is he fine? Does anyone have his full email address?
> > > These types of posts are not really inappropriate. Not logging onto USENET during Christmas holidays for 3 weeks is not a cause of concern.
> > I assume you mean "not really appropriate". I am concerned as I know Peter Stewart is elderly and has health issues.
> > As today is Epiphany, how were your Christmas holidays?
> A week later, Peter Stewart still hasn't returned. I am worried.

"Peter Stewart" is the pen name of (HRH) Prince Andrew, The Duke of York. He may have more important things to attend to just now.

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:11:49 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:43:45 PM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > A quinta-feira, 6 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 11:04:50 UTC, Paulo Ricardo Canedo escreveu:
> > > A quarta-feira, 5 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 21:19:38 UTC, joe...@gmail.com escreveu:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 7:43:21 AM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > > > > Peter Stewart hasn't posted since 17 December, as far as I can tell. Is he fine? Does anyone have his full email address?
> > > > These types of posts are not really inappropriate. Not logging onto USENET during Christmas holidays for 3 weeks is not a cause of concern.
> > > I assume you mean "not really appropriate". I am concerned as I know Peter Stewart is elderly and has health issues.
> > > As today is Epiphany, how were your Christmas holidays?
> > A week later, Peter Stewart still hasn't returned. I am worried.
> "Peter Stewart" is the pen name of (HRH) Prince Andrew, The Duke of York. He may have more important things to attend to just now.

Ha!

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:11:49 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
[not repeated]

I realize this was meant as humour, but have you thought through the implications? I don't think you really wanted to intimate that a long-time contributor here is an alleged sexual abuser, did you?

taf

A sexta-feira, 14 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 23:54:18 UTC, taf escreveu:
> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:11:49 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> [not repeated]
>
> I realize this was meant as humour, but have you thought through the implications? I don't think you really wanted to intimate that a long-time contributor here is an alleged sexual abuser, did you?
>
> taf

I don't like this kind of jokes, either.

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:54:18 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:11:49 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> [not repeated]
>
> I realize this was meant as humour, but have you thought through the implications? I don't think you really wanted to intimate that a long-time contributor here is an alleged sexual abuser, did you?
>
> taf

No, this was more related to the fact that Peter used to hint about a close relationship to the Queen's Mum.

As I understand it, the age of consent in the UK is 16, so P. Andrew is only in trouble for anything that may have happened in the US. I'm unsure how that is going to be proved at this point.

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 7:25:26 PM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> A sexta-feira, 14 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 23:54:18 UTC, taf escreveu:
> > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:11:49 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > [not repeated]
> >
> > I realize this was meant as humour, but have you thought through the implications? I don't think you really wanted to intimate that a long-time contributor here is an alleged sexual abuser, did you?
> >
> > taf
> I don't like this kind of jokes, either.

No, you just want detailed lists of activities done on Christmas day.

Op zaterdag 15 januari 2022 om 00:54:18 UTC+1 schreef taf:
> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:11:49 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> [not repeated]
>
> I realize this was meant as humour, but have you thought through the implications? I don't think you really wanted to intimate that a long-time contributor here is an alleged sexual abuser, did you?
>
> taf

We need not be that serious. Nobody in his right mind would follow that path. Have we come so far that woke ideas have infiltrated this forum that one has to watch what one is saying or writing in public when of the record we all make an occasionly joke?

Hans Vogels

A sábado, 15 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 04:06:48 UTC, JBrand escreveu:
> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 7:25:26 PM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > A sexta-feira, 14 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 23:54:18 UTC, taf escreveu:
> > > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:11:49 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > [not repeated]
> > >
> > > I realize this was meant as humour, but have you thought through the implications? I don't think you really wanted to intimate that a long-time contributor here is an alleged sexual abuser, did you?
> > >
> > > taf
> > I don't like this kind of jokes, either.
> No, you just want detailed lists of activities done on Christmas day.

I provided mine and wasted time doing so.

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 2:31:36 AM UTC-5, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op zaterdag 15 januari 2022 om 00:54:18 UTC+1 schreef taf:
> > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:11:49 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > [not repeated]
> >
> > I realize this was meant as humour, but have you thought through the implications? I don't think you really wanted to intimate that a long-time contributor here is an alleged sexual abuser, did you?
> >
> > taf
> We need not be that serious. Nobody in his right mind would follow that path. Have we come so far that woke ideas have infiltrated this forum that one has to watch what one is saying or writing in public when of the record we all make an occasionly joke?

I would suggest that being offended about being compared to a sexual abuser is not a new or 'woke' idea. I suspect if you had said this about someone in 1980 or 1950 or 1850, or heck, to bring this on-topic, if you insulted someone like this in 1450, you may have someone 'throw down the gauntlet' at you. If you think people of today are more offended by words than people of the past (spoiler alert: they are not); I would challenge you as a start, to read the volumes of New England lawsuits in the 17th century related to off the cuff or even rumored insults.

Yes, Peter Stewart's mother was reportedly (by DSH?) to be a friend of the Queen Mother. However, Mr. Stewart reported that they share no close relation. From memory, he was no closer related to the current monarchy than through a common descent from the 4th Duke of Devonshire (b.1720) if memory serves.

I hope he is well, and whether or not "Peter Stewart" is a pen name or not, I do not know or care.

--Joe Cook

Op zaterdag 15 januari 2022 om 16:51:17 UTC+1 schreef joe...@gmail.com:
> On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 2:31:36 AM UTC-5, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Op zaterdag 15 januari 2022 om 00:54:18 UTC+1 schreef taf:
> > > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:11:49 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > [not repeated]
> > >
> > > I realize this was meant as humour, but have you thought through the implications? I don't think you really wanted to intimate that a long-time contributor here is an alleged sexual abuser, did you?
> > >
> > > taf
> > We need not be that serious. Nobody in his right mind would follow that path. Have we come so far that woke ideas have infiltrated this forum that one has to watch what one is saying or writing in public when of the record we all make an occasionly joke?
> I would suggest that being offended about being compared to a sexual abuser is not a new or 'woke' idea. I suspect if you had said this about someone in 1980 or 1950 or 1850, or heck, to bring this on-topic, if you insulted someone like this in 1450, you may have someone 'throw down the gauntlet' at you. If you think people of today are more offended by words than people of the past (spoiler alert: they are not); I would challenge you as a start, to read the volumes of New England lawsuits in the 17th century related to off the cuff or even rumored insults.
>
> Yes, Peter Stewart's mother was reportedly (by DSH?) to be a friend of the Queen Mother. However, Mr. Stewart reported that they share no close relation. From memory, he was no closer related to the current monarchy than through a common descent from the 4th Duke of Devonshire (b.1720) if memory serves.
>
> I hope he is well, and whether or not "Peter Stewart" is a pen name or not, I do not know or care.
>
> --Joe Cook

Joe, get a life, don't be so serious. It started as a casual joke. You talk of lawsuits then you must know the expression innocent until proven guilty.. I could not care one hoot about the English royal family or any else, but I do have an opinion on being convicted before being on trial.

How many innocent persons in New England (and elswhere) were with and without lawsuits condemned and died by mere gossip?
And don't start on no smoke without fire. Those victims in the past had no leg to stand and burned or drowned to death.

P. Andrew is without doubt a arrogant pain in the ass and he probably did lots of thing that decent people would not dream of doing but for the time being he is just under investigation. If he is to blame for taking advantage of a situation so are the people who made the situation possible and the 'victims' are to blame for their naivety, and their parents for letting their daughters of their sight.

'Nuf said' on an off topic on a genealogical newsgroup. Let's turn back to the persons whom we descent off, the survivors in a harsh world.

Hans Vogels

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 12:50:05 PM UTC-5, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op zaterdag 15 januari 2022 om 16:51:17 UTC+1 schreef joe...@gmail.com:
> > On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 2:31:36 AM UTC-5, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Op zaterdag 15 januari 2022 om 00:54:18 UTC+1 schreef taf:
> > > > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:11:49 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > [not repeated]
> > > >
> > > > I realize this was meant as humour, but have you thought through the implications? I don't think you really wanted to intimate that a long-time contributor here is an alleged sexual abuser, did you?
> > > >
> > > > taf
> > > We need not be that serious. Nobody in his right mind would follow that path. Have we come so far that woke ideas have infiltrated this forum that one has to watch what one is saying or writing in public when of the record we all make an occasionly joke?
> > I would suggest that being offended about being compared to a sexual abuser is not a new or 'woke' idea. I suspect if you had said this about someone in 1980 or 1950 or 1850, or heck, to bring this on-topic, if you insulted someone like this in 1450, you may have someone 'throw down the gauntlet' at you. If you think people of today are more offended by words than people of the past (spoiler alert: they are not); I would challenge you as a start, to read the volumes of New England lawsuits in the 17th century related to off the cuff or even rumored insults.
> >
> > Yes, Peter Stewart's mother was reportedly (by DSH?) to be a friend of the Queen Mother. However, Mr. Stewart reported that they share no close relation. From memory, he was no closer related to the current monarchy than through a common descent from the 4th Duke of Devonshire (b.1720) if memory serves.
> >
> > I hope he is well, and whether or not "Peter Stewart" is a pen name or not, I do not know or care.
> >
> > --Joe Cook
> Joe, get a life, don't be so serious. It started as a casual joke. You talk of lawsuits then you must know the expression innocent until proven guilty. I could not care one hoot about the English royal family or any else, but I do have an opinion on being convicted before being on trial.
>
> How many innocent persons in New England (and elswhere) were with and without lawsuits condemned and died by mere gossip?
> And don't start on no smoke without fire. Those victims in the past had no leg to stand and burned or drowned to death.
>
> P. Andrew is without doubt a arrogant pain in the ass and he probably did lots of thing that decent people would not dream of doing but for the time being he is just under investigation. If he is to blame for taking advantage of a situation so are the people who made the situation possible and the 'victims' are to blame for their naivety, and their parents for letting their daughters of their sight.
>
> 'Nuf said' on an off topic on a genealogical newsgroup. Let's turn back to the persons whom we descent off, the survivors in a harsh world.
>
> Hans Vogels

It does seem that the treatment of Prince Andrew by his own family is quite excessive. No doubt, this is mainly an attempt to Charles and William and others who dislike Andrew to get him out of the way for good.

Why can't the British Government take a stance and not allow extradition? There is a similar case from the opposite angle, i.e., the American Anne Sacoolas accused of in the death of a British citizen (perhaps by drunk driving). The US is currently not going to extradite her.

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 4:32:35 AM UTC-8, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> A sábado, 15 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 04:06:48 UTC, JBrand escreveu:
> > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 7:25:26 PM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > > A sexta-feira, 14 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 23:54:18 UTC, taf escreveu:
> > > > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:11:49 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > [not repeated]
> > > >
> > > > I realize this was meant as humour, but have you thought through the implications? I don't think you really wanted to intimate that a long-time contributor here is an alleged sexual abuser, did you?
> > > >
> > > > taf
> > > I don't like this kind of jokes, either.
> > No, you just want detailed lists of activities done on Christmas day.
> I provided mine and wasted time doing so.
I agree fully with the second half of your statement - a waste of time, and totally OT.

Can we get back to genealogy now?

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 9:50:05 AM UTC-8, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op zaterdag 15 januari 2022 om 16:51:17 UTC+1 schreef joe...@gmail.com:
> > On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 2:31:36 AM UTC-5, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Op zaterdag 15 januari 2022 om 00:54:18 UTC+1 schreef taf:
> > > > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:11:49 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > [not repeated]
> > > >
> > > > I realize this was meant as humour, but have you thought through the implications? I don't think you really wanted to intimate that a long-time contributor here is an alleged sexual abuser, did you?
> > > >
> > > > taf
> > > We need not be that serious. Nobody in his right mind would follow that path. Have we come so far that woke ideas have infiltrated this forum that one has to watch what one is saying or writing in public when of the record we all make an occasionly joke?
> > I would suggest that being offended about being compared to a sexual abuser is not a new or 'woke' idea. I suspect if you had said this about someone in 1980 or 1950 or 1850, or heck, to bring this on-topic, if you insulted someone like this in 1450, you may have someone 'throw down the gauntlet' at you. If you think people of today are more offended by words than people of the past (spoiler alert: they are not); I would challenge you as a start, to read the volumes of New England lawsuits in the 17th century related to off the cuff or even rumored insults.
> >
> > Yes, Peter Stewart's mother was reportedly (by DSH?) to be a friend of the Queen Mother. However, Mr. Stewart reported that they share no close relation. From memory, he was no closer related to the current monarchy than through a common descent from the 4th Duke of Devonshire (b.1720) if memory serves.
> >
> > I hope he is well, and whether or not "Peter Stewart" is a pen name or not, I do not know or care.
> >
> > --Joe Cook
> Joe, get a life, don't be so serious. It started as a casual joke. You talk of lawsuits then you must know the expression innocent until proven guilty. I could not care one hoot about the English royal family or any else, but I do have an opinion on being convicted before being on trial.
>
> How many innocent persons in New England (and elswhere) were with and without lawsuits condemned and died by mere gossip?
> And don't start on no smoke without fire. Those victims in the past had no leg to stand and burned or drowned to death.
>
> P. Andrew is without doubt a arrogant pain in the ass and he probably did lots of thing that decent people would not dream of doing but for the time being he is just under investigation. If he is to blame for taking advantage of a situation so are the people who made the situation possible and the 'victims' are to blame for their naivety, and their parents for letting their daughters of their sight.
>
> 'Nuf said' on an off topic on a genealogical newsgroup. Let's turn back to the persons whom we descent off, the survivors in a harsh world.
>
> Hans Vogels
Hans is absolutely right. Prince Andrew's difficulties are totally OT for this group. Can we get back to genealogy, please?

A sábado, 15 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 19:57:17 UTC, jhigg...@yahoo..com escreveu:
> On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 4:32:35 AM UTC-8, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > A sábado, 15 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 04:06:48 UTC, JBrand escreveu:
> > > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 7:25:26 PM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > > > A sexta-feira, 14 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 23:54:18 UTC, taf escreveu:
> > > > > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:11:49 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo..com wrote:
> > > > > [not repeated]
> > > > >
> > > > > I realize this was meant as humour, but have you thought through the implications? I don't think you really wanted to intimate that a long-time contributor here is an alleged sexual abuser, did you?
> > > > >
> > > > > taf
> > > > I don't like this kind of jokes, either.
> > > No, you just want detailed lists of activities done on Christmas day.
> > I provided mine and wasted time doing so.
> I agree fully with the second half of your statement - a waste of time, and totally OT.
>
> Can we get back to genealogy now?

Yes. I just think there is no harm in occasional off topic posts especially in holidays.

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 4:13:31 PM UTC-8, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> A sábado, 15 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 19:57:17 UTC, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
> > On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 4:32:35 AM UTC-8, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > > A sábado, 15 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 04:06:48 UTC, JBrand escreveu:
> > > > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 7:25:26 PM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > > > > A sexta-feira, 14 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 23:54:18 UTC, taf escreveu:
> > > > > > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:11:49 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > [not repeated]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I realize this was meant as humour, but have you thought through the implications? I don't think you really wanted to intimate that a long-time contributor here is an alleged sexual abuser, did you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > taf
> > > > > I don't like this kind of jokes, either.
> > > > No, you just want detailed lists of activities done on Christmas day.
> > > I provided mine and wasted time doing so.
> > I agree fully with the second half of your statement - a waste of time, and totally OT.
> >
> > Can we get back to genealogy now?
> Yes. I just think there is no harm in occasional off topic posts especially in holidays.

John Higgins is the grinch of the group ;)

Enno Borgsteede provided me Peter's full email address on 5 January but I only saw it on 15 January. On 16 January, Peter replied that he had been away from home and computers since mid December and that a Covid outbreak prevented his return. He said life without genealogy and particularly without soc.genealogy.medieval was a refreshing change and gave me his best wishes for 2022.
I and my family are ourselves on isolation as my stepfather tested positive this morning.