RootsChat.Com

With regards to the armour and bathroom problem, in some accounts I've read, if they needed to go they just went in the armour! After all, you can't call a halt in the middle of a battle so that people can use the toilet. Most knights had squires and it was their duty after battles to clean the armour inside and out.

I'd heard that, but hoped it wasn't true. LOL

Seems to me like having cramps just when you need to swing your sword contribute to a rather poor fighting technique. But then I suppose when people are hacking you with swords from all directions, loosening of the bowels is prone to happen either way.

It's good not to be a squire.

On a different subject of clothes and battle, one of the things that gets me curious is those occasional movie scenes where two armies are fig to>hting each other where they don't look all that much different.

Sure, many battles have been Celts vs. Romans or Vikings vs. Normans, etc, where it's pretty clear who's on which side. But there are plenty of battles where that's not the case. So in the heat of a battlefield, assuming nobody's wearing a particular distinctive type of dress from the others, how do you figure out who to stab and hack at and who not to?

Interesting discussion.

Personally I don't use Ancestry except for on occasion going to my brother's account (I'm listed as a user of his account.) to read something new he's discovered, or to add a bit of info.

My personal interest in our genealogy is to focus on remembering and documenting the stories of our family that my brother may be too young to have heard. For me, the stories about who they were and how they acted are more important to me than adding leaves. And also in encouraging my mother and aunts (now the three eldest in my family - with the exception of our newly discovered great uncle) to remember their stories.

Actually, that "add a leaf" thing DID work for my family on Ancestry. LOL they should pay my brother to make a commercial! My brother posted a picture of my grandfather and his fortunately unusual last name and it was found by my great-uncle that we never knew existed in Poland. And now two halves of our family have been very happily reunited. Uncle Kaz had the same exact photo of my grandfather, minus a crease that happened somewhere along Babcia's (Grandma's) travels.

And of course none of it would have happened if my Mom hadn't told me the truth about my father's father when I was 18 or if I hadn't later shared that with my brother. (Dad lied to us about his parental status all his life, even when confronted with the photo.)


So NOW both sides have an extended tree and we're all excited about it.

Granted this was (I assume) done with permission on both sides.

I understand wanting to keep your photos/documents to yourselves or at least to be asked/thanked/credited for your research. I also understand wanting to keep others from making stupid mistakes such as a relative who gives birth on both sides of the ocean within 6 months. I'm not sure what a cert is so I don't know how that plays in.

However for me, the idea of searching our genealogy is that the more brains and the more research that can link up, the better. So if any Adamski's or Cathers' or Bunell's want to share their trees or brain power I'd be all for a concerted effort! And I'm sure my brother would agree.

 

Quote from: [Ray] on Sunday 23 July 17 21:18 BST (UK)

Want to tell us the FULL details of how they got a copy of your work?

Did the OP say anyone had? 

Actually, in US law, if it hasn't been published at all on any site, magazine, paper, etc. then it hasn't been copyrighted at all. However I'm sure there are laws regarding your personal property stored on your computer.

Quote from: marcie dean on Saturday 22 July 17 17:32 BST (UK)

IF YOU WRITE SOMETHING ON YOUR LAPTOP AND COMMIT IT TO A DISC INSTEADOF PRINTING IT OUT ONTO PAPER IS IT STILLYOUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IF SOMEONE USES IT OR IS THAT ONLY FOR PRINTED MATTER?

Yes, it is still your intellectual property and automatically covered for copyright from the minute you finish it until 70 years after your death.
There is no need to register copyright in the UK, it is automatic.

However in some cases you may have to prove when a work was made (a common way for songwriters in the past was to post themselves a copy of the piece and keep the letter unopened).
If you have published a book then you should donate the required copies to the various UK copyright libraries (this can work out expensive and many people do not bother).

Cheers
Guy

Here in the US, and before the advent of personal computers, we did exactly this - send ourselves a copy of the work and keep it unopened. It was important that the date-stamp from the post office be on the envelope opening, so that it couldn't be tampered with.

In the US it's now generally accepted (according to my understanding) that any work is considered copyright when it is posted/sent to any other person or published in paper format or on the web.

But, if you sell it, there are many different ways of doing this. For instance there are First North American Serial Rights, where the copyright returns to the author after first printing. Then there are are worldwide rights and then "all rights" which is exactly what it sounds like. Then there are companies who buy movie rights and those that don't.

Also in dealing with websites, some retain the right to use your work to advertise their site in perpetuity, and some recognize that the author is the sole right holder of the work. Read your TOS before you publish anything on a public site if you care about its copyright!

Of course the US Copyright Office suggests you copyright your every piece of work thru them. Which runs, I think, $35 per document. (An insane price if you are even mildly prolific!)

Yep copyright law gets pretty complex. And if you're paid for your work, read the contract with care.

Quote from: Mike in Cumbria on Tuesday 12 September 17 17:26 BST (UK)

For reasons of mischief.

Exactly! I well remember a few years ago a member had two, if not three, identities, and on one occasion started a thread to which he then replied using his other identity.
He's still a member so I won't embarrass him by posting a link to the offending thread 

Well I will say that many years and I were both members of a politics forum. For several weeks we were attacked by members of the forum (notably those of differing political beliefs) as being one poster with two personas. The truth was that because of our particular ISP, we both had the same ISP number attached to our accounts.

Sometimes we DID both post to the same thread, if it was one that interested both of us. And at times we'd be on entirely different subjects. Eventually some of the folks on the forum realized that in many cases we had different interests, and that in ALL we had entirely different writing styles.

The idea of being sewn into clothes, if any parts of this is true, is insane to me. (Though highly interesting.) And yes, I can't imagine schoolmasters or Child Protective Services not noticing the stench and dealing with it as late as the 70's.

I HAVE read that back in the medieval period, before the invention of buttons and zippers, people were often sewn into their garments. It's my understanding that this was more of a rough stitch to keep the clothes from falling off, rather than something that kept them from removing trousers or lifting skirts to use the outhouse. It probably wouldn't require more than a few minutes to do, assuming the person had a servant or family member to help.

In those times, folks other than the wealthy rarely had more than one or two sets of garments, and that bathing was pretty much avoided as it was believed to cause sickness. (Go figure!) So easier to keep the same clothes on all the time, I guess. Now what boggles my mind is how knights in heavy armor (which usually DOES require a squire or other helper to get into) dealt with the bathroom problem!