Author Topic: The Swindler Asgill  (Read 34741 times)

Offline Winjoy

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Swindler Asgill
« Reply #162 on: Sunday 22 February 15 03:42 GMT (UK) »
“It might be tempting to think that William was an illegitimate son - in fact that was the conclusion of the Asgill family for some time now - but this has now been proved false.” You are absolutely right, LizzieL, it is most remiss of me to have used the word “proved” – quite unforgivable in fact.  I am convinced that is the case, all the same – the proof is what I came here for.
I certainly didn’t come here to have to say the same things over and over again – to be disbelieved on every count – and 17 pages later to have learnt nothing (other than the famous signature of Mary Leuchford which disproves the Leuchford belief that she was illiterate) but that fact barely impinges on the bigger story – Mary was still ostensibly a bride who would have been unacceptable to the General for his only child – only son – etc. etc. etc.  As we all know – General Asgill and his wife Sophia Ogle had no children at all – much less a sole son and heir.

This is, seriously my last post now.

Whether I read in future or not is something only time will tell. But all this is not what I came here to achieve - having to endlessly defend myself - repeat myself - and exhaust myself.

Nobody is prepared to help me prove the connection with WCA and the Swindler.  Everybody is telling me endlessly of things already known.

Goodbye to you all.

Online sparrett

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 18,287
    • View Profile
Re: The Swindler Asgill
« Reply #163 on: Sunday 22 February 15 05:53 GMT (UK) »
Winjoy,
You may think this is a good place to mark your thread as "completed"

As your thread is more than 24 hours old, this is the way to mark as "Completed"

(There is another way for threads less than 24 hours old.)
 
Use the "Report to Moderator" button on the topic and send a message stating the board name and indicate you wish it  "Completed".

Sue

Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline spades

  • Global Moderator
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 6,304
    • View Profile
Re: The Swindler Asgill
« Reply #164 on: Sunday 22 February 15 07:09 GMT (UK) »
Hi Sparrett,

You may not have noticed a new button which appears at the bottom of every topic page, 'Topic Completed'.

Members can use this to alert the Moderation Team that they consider their topic completed or otherwise resolved. Using this button adds a green tick mark in the topic list on the relevant board.

Spades
ELLERKER - Beverley ERY ENG
HEALEY - IRL?
MURDOCH - Wigtownshire SCT, Otago and Westland NZ
PALING - Nottinghamshire ENG
RILEY - Flamborough; Cottingham; South Dalton ERY, Manitoba CAN, & London ENG
STURTON - Arnold, Nottinghamshire ENG
SUTTRON - All, NRY & DUR ENG
TAYLOR - London ENG
TYLER - London ENG
TERNAN/TIERNAN - Dublin IRL

Offline chempat

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,568
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Swindler Asgill
« Reply #165 on: Sunday 22 February 15 08:22 GMT (UK) »
I think Winjoy does not realise how difficult it is for someone new to the 'mystery' to remember all the facts that have been supplied and not question various parts of the story. 

Winjoy has been working on the research since 2002 (or before) and so has the knowledge at the tips of her fingers, we do not.

More than a decade of information is going to need more than a quick week of rootschat suggestions and discussions

If Winjoy read other postings on rootschat then perhaps she would have noticed that that is what happens, and in any research we go over and over old ground to make sure that we have not missed anything.  (I am talking here about scientific research as much as genealogical).

Winjoy thinks that not a word that she has said has been believed.  No.  Every word that she has said might need to be questionned, but that is not because it is not believed, but in an attempt to get to the truth.

“I see no sign of you being " patronised, shouted at and looked down on," or anything turning "sinister and dark".

I understand that on the internet capitalised letters mean shouting! Look back and you will see what I mean.

As that was my quote that I did not believe Winjoy had been patronised, I have looked back.  I stand by my assertion.

It is sad that the rootschat researchers have been so misunderstood when they are just trying to get to the truth.


Offline Mike in Cumbria

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,755
    • View Profile
Re: The Swindler Asgill
« Reply #166 on: Sunday 22 February 15 09:24 GMT (UK) »
Good grief!

Online sparrett

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 18,287
    • View Profile
Re: The Swindler Asgill
« Reply #167 on: Sunday 22 February 15 09:57 GMT (UK) »
Hi Sparrett,

You may not have noticed a new button which appears at the bottom of every topic page, 'Topic Completed'.

Members can use this to alert the Moderation Team that they consider their topic completed or otherwise resolved. Using this button adds a green tick mark in the topic list on the relevant board.

Spades

Indeed, I hadn't spotted the new device  ;D
Thanks for the tip. It's now stored for future reference!

Sue
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Annie65115

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,098
  • HOLYLAND regd with guild of one name studies
    • View Profile
Re: The Swindler Asgill
« Reply #168 on: Sunday 22 February 15 11:02 GMT (UK) »
accusation --- disbeleived ---mocking -- insmnia -- crimes ---


Good grief, has this been a thread where some people have tried to help with a difficult problem, or a court of law?!

Clearly some people see things differently and take things unnecessarily to heart.

It would seem a good idea for this thread to go for a lie down in a dark room. I'm sorry that we weren't able to help (though not for lack of trying!) and I'm sorry that Winjoy has clearly chosen to interpret those efforts in such a negative light.

That's all from me on this thread. No point in trying any more.
Bradbury (Sedgeley, Bilston, Warrington)
Cooper (Sedgeley, Bilston)
Kilner/Kilmer (Leic, Notts)
Greenfield (Liverpool)
Holyland (Anywhere and everywhere, also Holiland Holliland Hollyland)
Pryce/Price (Welshpool, Liverpool)
Rawson (Leicester)
Upton (Desford, Leics)
Partrick (Vera and George, Leicester)
Marshall (Westmorland, Cheshire/Leicester)