Re: Cascading errors at Buyers' "Royal Ark"

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit susuhanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx os suum:
Francois R. Velde wrote:
Ah I see, you have given up your declared intention of not reading my
posts and advising others how not to do the same.

How perceptive of you! I haven't updated my killfile to include your new (and
so humble) email address. As for advising others, I only do so when they
complain about having to read your posts.

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit susuhanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx os suum:
Francois R. Velde wrote:
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit susuhanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx os suum:
Francois R. Velde wrote:

You said:
Not so, they used the word "renounce" point black."
(See http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/9c99a530c75f9717)

You also said:
the renunciations were made and published in the London Gazette dated,
14th July 1917."
(see http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/c49b415f5e790e20)

That is not a quotation from a document, now is it?

"They used the word "renounce" point black" is a statement by Mr Christopher
Buyers, a man who keeps every scrap that comes his way, that the Battenbergs and
Tecks used a specific word. Call that what you will, as long as you tell us
where "they" used the word "renounce".

Right the first time. It is a statement by Christopher Buyers. Not a
statement that it was a quotation from a document, is it?

You said "they used the word renounce". Did they or did they not? The question
couldn't be simpler.

It is a comment on
a document which then gives the date and reference where it can be
found, which the reader is quite capable of reading himself.

But as you well know, the document cannot to be found under the given date and
reference. The renunciations, if they exist, were never published. Nor does
any known document related to this matter use the word "renounce".

But nowhere did I say that the word is found in any document, did I? As
you say, that is a statement by Christopher Buyers.

Oh, I see. It was just "a statement by Christopher Buyers." Not one to be
taken seriously, then?

You also said:
the holders THEMSELVES abandoned, renounced, surrendered,
their titles THEMSELVES, albeit at the request of King George V, their
Sovereign. I have never claimed otherwise.
It may be useful for you to look at the London Gazette for June 1917.
You will see the renunciations/relinquishments by the people concerned.
(see http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/60b5ab5e39ced493)

Again, it refers the reader to the document, which he can read for
himself. The comment, ins't a direct quotation of the document, is it?

But no such document exists in the London Gazette for June 1917, or for any
other date.

Perhaps you should try reading the actual sentences that you actually
quoted from my post yourself. It reads "It may be useful for you to
look at the London Gazette for June 1917. You will see the
renunciations/relinquishments by the people concerned".

No one will see anything of the sort. No renunciations/relinquishments, no
documents of any kind by the Battenbergs and Tecks. Just another "statement by
Christopher Buyers"?

I wonder just what document signed Leopold of Battenberg, Alexander of
Battenberg, or Teck ("the holders THEMSELVES") you have actually read?

I have not, because there is no real need to do so.

So, tell us, how do you know that they used the word "renounce"?

As I said, there is no need becaue the meaning is the same.

This is not about meaning. This is about truthfulness. There is no point in
discussing meaning if we don't know what words were used.

Someone stated that the Tecks and Battenbergs said they would stop using their
titles. You said "Not so, they used the word renounce". You gave references.
The references were false. They never used the word renounce.

What words did they use?

If you know, give proof.

If you don't, how do you know "the meaning is the same"?
--
François Velde
velde@xxxxxxxxxx (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
.

Relevant Pages