Guy Stair Sainty (G...@newsguy.com) wrote: : In the Diary of yesterday's London Times, the following item appeared: : : "THE ballroom of Claridge's swelled with Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parma and : other Euro-exotics celebrating the relaunch of Almanach de Gotha - the first : time the stud book of continental grandees has been published since Jerry : overran the East. : : "Some months on I learn that its editor, Charlotte Pike, a former toff-tester at : Burke's Peerage, is less than chuffed with its publisher, John Kennedy. She is : taking legal action in a copyright dispute which could rock the almanac. : : "Kennedy (formely Gvozdenovic) is intriguing. He was the private secretary to : Prince Michael of Kent, with whom he parted on bad terms. : : "He is also a one-time Tory hopeful, who suggested that he was engaged to a : Balkan princess. The princess seemed rather surprised by his bold announcement." : : There is more to this story that will no doubt be revealed both about : this suit and Mr Kennedy (the subject of many newspaper articles in the : British press concerning his activities with a Libyan Prince, his arrest, : his involvement with a Yugoslav businessman and a suit for defamation : against the Sunday Times that Kennedy never pursued, etc). : : Kennedy, born Gvozdenovic (of Montenegrin Serbian ancestry) was allegedly, : according to some newspaper reports, involved with the charming leadership : of the Republic Srbska - the unrecognized rump led by an indicted war : criminal - and even at one time with Milosevic, although Mr Kennedy has denied : this. : : Ms Pike's (the Plaintiff) suit alleges that “upon the formation of the company : equity should be issued and divided as a percentage of 51% to the Plaintiff and : 25% to the Defendant, 24% to remain unissued with the purpose that it may be : used to attract future equity investment. The effect of this provision was that : the Plaintiff was entitled to 67.1% of all shares actually issued….. : : “On or about 16 Sep 1997 the Defendant became the sole beneficial owner of the : equity capital of the company and was appointed the sole director of the : company. At no time did he arrange the issue or allotment of any shares to the : Plaintiff.
Seems like these arrangements were bungled. Why was it possible not to issue her the shares?
There being no shares issued to the Perthes family,I assume the company under discussion is a licensee of theirs?
: 9. “On or about 16 March 1998 the company published an edition of the work being : substantially in the form prepared by the Plaintiff, and has thereby made : substantial profits. Such publication was without the license of the Plaintiff.
So is she or is she not responsible for the questionable Romanov position?
In the Diary of yesterday's London Times, the following item appeared:
"THE ballroom of Claridge's swelled with Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parma and other Euro-exotics celebrating the relaunch of Almanach de Gotha - the first time the stud book of continental grandees has been published since Jerry overran the East.
"Some months on I learn that its editor, Charlotte Pike, a former toff-tester at Burke's Peerage, is less than chuffed with its publisher, John Kennedy. She is taking legal action in a copyright dispute which could rock the almanac.
"Kennedy (formely Gvozdenovic) is intriguing. He was the private secretary to Prince Michael of Kent, with whom he parted on bad terms.
"He is also a one-time Tory hopeful, who suggested that he was engaged to a Balkan princess. The princess seemed rather surprised by his bold announcement."
There is more to this story that will no doubt be revealed both about this suit and Mr Kennedy (the subject of many newspaper articles in the British press concerning his activities with a Libyan Prince, his arrest, his involvement with a Yugoslav businessman and a suit for defamation against the Sunday Times that Kennedy never pursued, etc).
Kennedy, born Gvozdenovic (of Montenegrin Serbian ancestry) was allegedly, according to some newspaper reports, involved with the charming leadership of the Republic Srbska - the unrecognized rump led by an indicted war criminal - and even at one time with Milosevic, although Mr Kennedy has denied this.
Ms Pike's (the Plaintiff) suit alleges that “upon the formation of the company equity should be issued and divided as a percentage of 51% to the Plaintiff and 25% to the Defendant, 24% to remain unissued with the purpose that it may be used to attract future equity investment. The effect of this provision was that the Plaintiff was entitled to 67.1% of all shares actually issued…..
“On or about 16 Sep 1997 the Defendant became the sole beneficial owner of the equity capital of the company and was appointed the sole director of the company. At no time did he arrange the issue or allotment of any shares to the Plaintiff.
“On or about 16 Sep 1997 the Plaintiff was appointed company secretary of the company, and on 18 May 1998 the Defendant purported to remove her as company secretary and to appoint a Mrs Valerie Long as company secretary.
7. “At no time did the Defendant inform the Plaintiff that, notwithstanding the clear terms of the agreement, no shares had been allotted to the Plaintiff, nor that she had no right to participate in the direction of the company.
8. “Although the Plaintiff was appointed company secretary, and notwithstanding the terms of the agreement, the direction of the company was carried out by the Defendant without her knowledge or participation. In particular decisions have been taken relating to the ownership of the capital of the company and the publication of the work without her being consulted.
9. “On or about 16 March 1998 the company published an edition of the work being substantially in the form prepared by the Plaintiff, and has thereby made substantial profits. Such publication was without the license of the Plaintiff.
10. “ At no time has the Plaintiff received any benefit from the publication by the company of the work either directly or by way of remuneration or distribution from the company. The entire profit and benefit of the said publication has inured to the benefit of the Defendant by virtue of his directorship in the company and his ownership of the whole of the issued share capital in the company.
11. “The Plaintiff avers that had the agreement been properly implemented by the Defendant she would have been entitled either by way of distribution or profits or value amounting to the aggregate of 67/1% of the value of the company, such value to include both actual profits, after costs of production but not remuneration paid to the Defendant and value attributable to the probability of future profits including, in particular future profits attributable to the goodwill arising out of the production of the work.
12. “ …… By virtue of the said failures the Defendant has benefited at the expense of the Plaintiff.
13. “By reason of the foregoing, the Defendant
(a) is liable, by way of specific performance, to transfer shares amounting to 67.1% of the issued capital in the company to the Plaintiff; (b) Further or in the alternative, holds his interest in the capital of the company as to 67.1% as resulting or constructive trustee for the Plaintiff absolutely; (c) Is liable to account to the Plaintiff as to 67.1% of all sums received and to be received by him by way of remuneration and dividends from the company; as set out in paragraph 11 above.
14. “ The Defendant is in the alternative entitled to damages for breach of contract in a sum equivalent to the Plaintiff’s loss, being the sum referred to in paragraph 13 above.
15. “ the Plaintiff further claims to be entitled to general damages for her loss of opportunity to acquire further profits through having a majority equity interest in the company.”
These allegations will no doubt be resolved in the eventual court action.
> In the Diary of yesterday's London Times, the following item appeared:
> "THE ballroom of Claridge's swelled with Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parma and > other Euro-exotics celebrating the relaunch of Almanach de Gotha - the first > time the stud book of continental grandees has been published since Jerry > overran the East.
> "Some months on I learn that its editor, Charlotte Pike, a former toff-tester at > Burke's Peerage, is less than chuffed with its publisher, John Kennedy. She is > taking legal action in a copyright dispute which could rock the almanac.
> "Kennedy (formely Gvozdenovic) is intriguing. He was the private secretary to > Prince Michael of Kent, with whom he parted on bad terms.
> "He is also a one-time Tory hopeful, who suggested that he was engaged to a > Balkan princess. The princess seemed rather surprised by his bold announcement."
> There is more to this story that will no doubt be revealed both about > this suit and Mr Kennedy (the subject of many newspaper articles in the > British press concerning his activities with a Libyan Prince, his arrest, > his involvement with a Yugoslav businessman and a suit for defamation > against the Sunday Times that Kennedy never pursued, etc).
> Kennedy, born Gvozdenovic (of Montenegrin Serbian ancestry) was allegedly, > according to some newspaper reports, involved with the charming leadership > of the Republic Srbska - the unrecognized rump led by an indicted war > criminal - and even at one time with Milosevic, although Mr Kennedy has denied > this.
> Ms Pike's (the Plaintiff) suit alleges that “upon the formation of the company > equity should be issued and divided as a percentage of 51% to the Plaintiff and > 25% to the Defendant, 24% to remain unissued with the purpose that it may be > used to attract future equity investment. The effect of this provision was that > the Plaintiff was entitled to 67.1% of all shares actually issued…..
I regret to say that I had not yet discovered atr when you people were talking about the '98 edition. What is the overall feeling in atr towards John Kennedy, Charlotte Pike, and the resuscitated de Gotha?
--- J.M.K.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
astya...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > In article <7hrlv0$2...@drn.newsguy.com>, > Guy Stair Sainty <G...@newsguy.com> wrote: > > In the Diary of yesterday's London Times, the
following item appeared:
> > "THE ballroom of Claridge's swelled with
Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parma and
> > other Euro-exotics celebrating the relaunch of
Almanach de Gotha - the first
> > time the stud book of continental grandees has
been published since Jerry
> > overran the East.
> > "Some months on I learn that its editor,
Charlotte Pike, a former toff-tester at
> > Burke's Peerage, is less than chuffed with its
publisher, John Kennedy. She is
> > taking legal action in a copyright dispute
which could rock the almanac.
> > "Kennedy (formely Gvozdenovic) is intriguing.
He was the private secretary to
> > Prince Michael of Kent, with whom he parted on bad terms.
> > "He is also a one-time Tory hopeful, who
suggested that he was engaged to a
> > Balkan princess. The princess seemed rather
surprised by his bold announcement."
> > There is more to this story that will no doubt
be revealed both about
> > this suit and Mr Kennedy (the subject of many
newspaper articles in the
> > British press concerning his activities with a
Libyan Prince, his arrest,
> > his involvement with a Yugoslav businessman
and a suit for defamation
> > against the Sunday Times that Kennedy never pursued, etc).
> > Kennedy, born Gvozdenovic (of Montenegrin
Serbian ancestry) was allegedly,
> > according to some newspaper reports, involved
with the charming leadership
> > of the Republic Srbska - the unrecognized rump
led by an indicted war
> > criminal - and even at one time with
Milosevic, although Mr Kennedy has denied
> > this.
> > Ms Pike's (the Plaintiff) suit alleges that
“upon the formation of the company
> > equity should be issued and divided as a
percentage of 51% to the Plaintiff and
> > 25% to the Defendant, 24% to remain unissued
with the purpose that it may be
> > used to attract future equity investment. The
effect of this provision was that
> > the Plaintiff was entitled to 67.1% of all
shares actually issued…..
> I regret to say that I had not yet discovered
atr when you people were
> talking about the '98 edition. What is
the overall feeling in atr towards
> John Kennedy, Charlotte Pike, and the
resuscitated de Gotha?
> --- J.M.K.
> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- > ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
This is, of course, a sensationalism that reveals or twists nothing that isn't already known. Most of this also has nothing to do with the Almanach de Gotha. As editor/publisher, Mr Kennedy, has the support of many of the heads of European dynasties in this project (and two crowned kings)--all one has to do is look at the Patronage Committe in the 1999 edition. The new edition has also received raves in aristocratic circles in Europe and is a fine improvement on the "Pike" edition. Ms Pike should perhaps better not claim anything against anyone considering the details that have emerged on her "careers" before Gotha, and her continued unprofessional and incorrect manner during and after her "work" with the Gotha. She is unimportant to the publication and has nothing to do with the new edition. As to Mr Sainty, who has used the title of Almanach de Gotha (the title belongs to the original publishers--Perthes in Germany--who are very satisfied with the new Gotha) without right as well as information from the 1998 Gotha (including some of the errors!) on his websites, there is really nothing to be said--he seems to say it all himself. It is obvious why Mr Sainty is so interested in promoting this worthless information. Certainly, the Houses listed in the Almanach de Gotha are familiar with the attitudes of the press and care nothing about this absurd subversion of Mr Kennedy, a trusted editor of an important work. RD
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
: In article <7hvbrb$n4...@nnrp1.deja.com>, : astya...@my-dejanews.com wrote: : > In article <7hrlv0$2...@drn.newsguy.com>, : > Guy Stair Sainty <G...@newsguy.com> wrote: : > > In the Diary of yesterday's London Times, the : following item appeared: : > > : > > "THE ballroom of Claridge's swelled with : Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parma and : > > other Euro-exotics celebrating the relaunch of : Almanach de Gotha - the first : > > time the stud book of continental grandees has : been published since Jerry : > > overran the East. : > > : > > "Some months on I learn that its editor, : Charlotte Pike, a former toff-tester at : > > Burke's Peerage, is less than chuffed with its : publisher, John Kennedy. She is : > > taking legal action in a copyright dispute : which could rock the almanac. : > > : > > "Kennedy (formely Gvozdenovic) is intriguing. : He was the private secretary to : > > Prince Michael of Kent, with whom he parted on : bad terms. : > > : > > "He is also a one-time Tory hopeful, who : suggested that he was engaged to a : > > Balkan princess. The princess seemed rather : surprised by his bold announcement." : > > : > > There is more to this story that will no doubt : be revealed both about : > > this suit and Mr Kennedy (the subject of many : newspaper articles in the : > > British press concerning his activities with a : Libyan Prince, his arrest, : > > his involvement with a Yugoslav businessman : and a suit for defamation : > > against the Sunday Times that Kennedy never : pursued, etc). : > > : > > Kennedy, born Gvozdenovic (of Montenegrin : Serbian ancestry) was allegedly, : > > according to some newspaper reports, involved : with the charming leadership : > > of the Republic Srbska - the unrecognized rump : led by an indicted war : > > criminal - and even at one time with : Milosevic, although Mr Kennedy has denied : > > this. : > > : > > Ms Pike's (the Plaintiff) suit alleges that : “upon the formation of the company : > > equity should be issued and divided as a : percentage of 51% to the Plaintiff and : > > 25% to the Defendant, 24% to remain unissued : with the purpose that it may be : > > used to attract future equity investment. The : effect of this provision was that : > > the Plaintiff was entitled to 67.1% of all : shares actually issued….. : > I regret to say that I had not yet discovered : atr when you people were : > talking about the '98 edition. What is : the overall feeling in atr towards : > John Kennedy, Charlotte Pike, and the : resuscitated de Gotha? : > : > --- J.M.K. : > : : This is, of course, a sensationalism that reveals : or twists nothing that isn't already known. Most : of this also has nothing to do with the Almanach : de Gotha. As editor/publisher, Mr Kennedy, has : the support of many of the heads of European : dynasties in this project (and two crowned : kings)--all one has to do is look at the Patronage : Committe in the 1999 edition.
Yes,where he credits Prince Nicholas Romanovsky-Sheremeteff with a name and title to which he is not entitled,having o,posed a genealogical absurdity on the text to favor the man.
: The new edition has : also received raves in aristocratic circles in : Europe and is a fine improvement on the "Pike" : edition. Ms Pike should perhaps better not claim : anything against anyone considering the details : that have emerged on her "careers" before Gotha, : and her continued unprofessional and incorrect : manner during and after her "work" with the Gotha. : She is unimportant to the publication and has : nothing to do with the new edition.
Well,the volume was promoted with leaflets(I have one) that claimed it was edited by Pike,proofread by Williamson, overseen by Perthes...and said not a thing about Kennedy.
: As to Mr Sainty, who has used the title of : Almanach de Gotha (the title belongs to the : original publishers--Perthes in Germany--who are : very satisfied with the new Gotha) without right : as well as information from the 1998 Gotha : (including some of the errors!) on his websites, : there is really nothing to be said--he seems to : say it all himself. It is obvious why Mr Sainty : is so interested in promoting this worthless : information. Certainly, the Houses listed in the : Almanach de Gotha are familiar with the attitudes : of the press and care nothing about this absurd : subversion of Mr Kennedy, a trusted editor of an : important work. : RD
Could you perhaps declare any affiliation of your own?
>In article <7hvbrb$n4...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > astya...@my-dejanews.com wrote: >> In article <7hrlv0$2...@drn.newsguy.com>, >> Guy Stair Sainty <G...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> > In the Diary of yesterday's London Times, the >following item appeared:
>> > "THE ballroom of Claridge's swelled with >Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parma and >> > other Euro-exotics celebrating the relaunch of >Almanach de Gotha - the first >> > time the stud book of continental grandees has >been published since Jerry >> > overran the East.
>> > "Some months on I learn that its editor, >Charlotte Pike, a former toff-tester at >> > Burke's Peerage, is less than chuffed with its >publisher, John Kennedy. She is >> > taking legal action in a copyright dispute >which could rock the almanac.
>> > "Kennedy (formely Gvozdenovic) is intriguing. >He was the private secretary to >> > Prince Michael of Kent, with whom he parted on >bad terms.
>> > "He is also a one-time Tory hopeful, who >suggested that he was engaged to a >> > Balkan princess. The princess seemed rather >surprised by his bold announcement."
>> > There is more to this story that will no doubt >be revealed both about >> > this suit and Mr Kennedy (the subject of many >newspaper articles in the >> > British press concerning his activities with a >Libyan Prince, his arrest, >> > his involvement with a Yugoslav businessman >and a suit for defamation >> > against the Sunday Times that Kennedy never >pursued, etc).
>> > Kennedy, born Gvozdenovic (of Montenegrin >Serbian ancestry) was allegedly, >> > according to some newspaper reports, involved >with the charming leadership >> > of the Republic Srbska - the unrecognized rump >led by an indicted war >> > criminal - and even at one time with >Milosevic, although Mr Kennedy has denied >> > this.
>> > Ms Pike's (the Plaintiff) suit alleges that >“upon the formation of the company >> > equity should be issued and divided as a >percentage of 51% to the Plaintiff and >> > 25% to the Defendant, 24% to remain unissued >with the purpose that it may be >> > used to attract future equity investment. The >effect of this provision was that >> > the Plaintiff was entitled to 67.1% of all >shares actually issued….. >> I regret to say that I had not yet discovered >atr when you people were >> talking about the '98 edition. What is >the overall feeling in atr towards >> John Kennedy, Charlotte Pike, and the >resuscitated de Gotha?
>> --- J.M.K.
>> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- >> ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
>This is, of course, a sensationalism that reveals >or twists nothing that isn't already known. Most >of this also has nothing to do with the Almanach >de Gotha. As editor/publisher, Mr Kennedy, has >the support of many of the heads of European >dynasties in this project (and two crowned >kings)--all one has to do is look at the Patronage >Committe in the 1999 edition.
Do you believe that he received written permission for the participation of each of the individuals named on this list?
The new edition has
>also received raves in aristocratic circles in >Europe and is a fine improvement on the "Pike" >edition.
Oh yes, from whom? Which "circles" - those of the various dead people named as living?
>anything against anyone considering the details >that have emerged on her "careers" before Gotha, >and her continued unprofessional and incorrect >manner during and after her "work" with the Gotha. >She is unimportant to the publication and has >nothing to do with the new edition. >As to Mr Sainty, who has used the title of >Almanach de Gotha (the title belongs to the >original publishers--Perthes in Germany--who are >very satisfied with the new Gotha) without right >as well as information from the 1998 Gotha >(including some of the errors!) on his websites, >there is really nothing to be said--he seems to >say it all himself. It is obvious why Mr Sainty >is so interested in promoting this worthless >information. Certainly, the Houses listed in the >Almanach de Gotha are familiar with the attitudes >of the press and care nothing about this absurd >subversion of Mr Kennedy, a trusted editor of an >important work. >RD
So Kennedy's poodle has come out snapping. If Ms Pike's career was so discreditable, how come that unlike Mr kennedy's it does not fill some 50+ newspaper stories in the past 6 years? Why did the distinguished Mr Kennedy associate himself with it?
Or is it not actually the case that Ms Pike worked on this for 8 years, that Kennedy came on board less than 8 months before publication which he forced through prematurely before final proofing made it possible to change the errors, that it was he who checked and sent the proofs to be printed (including the bizarre layout of the Bourbon family with the Orleans family first), and it was he who insisted on the perversion of the original Gotha policy on the Russian entry?
But what this nasty unidentified poodle does not explain is how Mr kennedy managed to find himself the owner of this company when he came into the project in August 1997, while when he registered the shareholdings of what was supposed to be a company owned jointly by him and Ms Pike, he only registered his own shares and did not register any at all for her. How does this poodle explain why Ms Pike did not even know that he had not registered her shares until she did a company search when, as majority shareholder (or so she believed) she decided to fire him from the company.
Instead of answering these charges, he just responds by making other unwarranted personal attacks.
As for my articles on royal families, the histories bear little relationship at all (thankfully) to the histories published by Mr Kennedy, replete with errors that they are even in the revised edition. That Ms Pike, who drew up these genealgies supplied them to me for proofing and consented to their use I do not deny. But then they appear with accurate information thanks to various contributors to atr who helped me. This informtion is in the public sphere and the layout of these texts does not in fact mimic the Gotha as the generations are indicated with different symbols, the details of births and deaths are accurate, and the Orders are given correctly. What is fascinating to see is that the entire Bourbon family entry now relies on the text I supplied, with the correct Orders, names, etc, without any thanks or acknowledgment - this text was not used in the 1998 edition for which I supplied it to Ms Pike, but has been taken in its entirety by mr Kennedy for his 1999 edition. Unfortunately, he still fails to follow the original Gotha format which put the branches in genealogical'order, but instead (out of ignorance one must assume) reverses it with Orleans followed by Parma and then the Two Sicilies, a nonsensical ordering. Even if he decided unilaterally, and against all precedent in serious genealogical works, that France should come first, putting the most junior line of the Bourbon family, that of Parma, ahead of the Two Sicilies, is idiotic. Why are illegitimate issue listed as if they were legitimate, in the same typeface?
And he still gets things wrong with Orders (such as his description of the Archduke Otto's orders, which include the "Papal Gregorius Order" which should be Gd Crosss Papal Order of St Gregory the Great). Why does he list the dynastic Orders of some dynasties and not others? Why does he list some individuals memberships but not others?
Why has he followed British publications in the case of the Royal Family of Great Britain? Would it not have been worth stating that the Queen is also Sovereign of some 17 other states and recognize that she is Queen of Canada, of Australia etc. There may be Canadian readers who would like this acknowledged. We are told that Prince Michael of Kent (Kennedy's sometime employer) became legally dead when he married a Catholic. Aside from the fact that those who know something of Mr Kennedy's employment with the Prince might assume some unpleasant bias here, if Princess Michael became an Anglican there would be no barrier to his succession. But then he has killed off the Earl of Downpatrick and the Crown Prince of Hannover - but how about the 100s of other living descendants of the Electress Sophia who have married Catholics, why are they not killed off by mr Kennedy? Or does he actually not understand the Act of Settlement? What would Mr Kennedy introduce next, the Resurrection? Why also are the Orders held by foreign royalty listed, but not those by British?
On what basis does he claim that the majority of French Monarchists consider the Count of Paris to be Henri VI, king of France and Navarre. Has he done a survey? It may be true that most ordinary Frenchmen if asked who the royalist claimant is may well respond the Count of Paris, but the majority of Frenchmen and women are not monarchists. The tiny number of monarchists/royalists are of divided loyalties and no survey of any kind has been done to determine the numbers which support one or other claimant. This kind of statement seriously detracts from any pretensions to scholarship.
As for the Appendix on this issue, for him to claim that the Count of Paris was recognized as the legal heir of Henri V is untrue (need one be surprised that adherence to fact is difficult for this editor?). It is also innaccurate to say that the heirs of the primogeniture line "made little active claim" to the throne of France. And if, as he states, the majority of French royalists support the Count of Paris what is the point of this appendix which seems to imply the opposite.
He is still disgracefully partisan in his perversion of historical truth in the Russian entry (but then as a Montenegrin Serb he has a strange bias to anyone with a Montenegrin
> In article <7hvmss$v0...@nnrp1.deja.com>, sascha5...@my-dejanews.com says...
> >In article <7hvbrb$n4...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > > astya...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > >> In article <7hrlv0$2...@drn.newsguy.com>, > >> Guy Stair Sainty <G...@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> > In the Diary of yesterday's London Times, the > >following item appeared:
> >> > "THE ballroom of Claridge's swelled with > >Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parma and > >> > other Euro-exotics celebrating the relaunch of > >Almanach de Gotha - the first > >> > time the stud book of continental grandees has > >been published since Jerry > >> > overran the East.
> >> > "Some months on I learn that its editor, > >Charlotte Pike, a former toff-tester at > >> > Burke's Peerage, is less than chuffed with its > >publisher, John Kennedy. She is > >> > taking legal action in a copyright dispute > >which could rock the almanac.
> >> > "Kennedy (formely Gvozdenovic) is intriguing. > >He was the private secretary to > >> > Prince Michael of Kent, with whom he parted on > >bad terms.
> >> > "He is also a one-time Tory hopeful, who > >suggested that he was engaged to a > >> > Balkan princess. The princess seemed rather > >surprised by his bold announcement."
> >> > There is more to this story that will no doubt > >be revealed both about > >> > this suit and Mr Kennedy (the subject of many > >newspaper articles in the > >> > British press concerning his activities with a > >Libyan Prince, his arrest, > >> > his involvement with a Yugoslav businessman > >and a suit for defamation > >> > against the Sunday Times that Kennedy never > >pursued, etc).
> >> > Kennedy, born Gvozdenovic (of Montenegrin > >Serbian ancestry) was allegedly, > >> > according to some newspaper reports, involved > >with the charming leadership > >> > of the Republic Srbska - the unrecognized rump > >led by an indicted war > >> > criminal - and even at one time with > >Milosevic, although Mr Kennedy has denied > >> > this.
> >> > Ms Pike's (the Plaintiff) suit alleges that > >“upon the formation of the company > >> > equity should be issued and divided as a > >percentage of 51% to the Plaintiff and > >> > 25% to the Defendant, 24% to remain unissued > >with the purpose that it may be > >> > used to attract future equity investment. The > >effect of this provision was that > >> > the Plaintiff was entitled to 67.1% of all > >shares actually issued….. > >> I regret to say that I had not yet discovered > >atr when you people were > >> talking about the '98 edition. What is > >the overall feeling in atr towards > >> John Kennedy, Charlotte Pike, and the > >resuscitated de Gotha?
> >> --- J.M.K.
> >> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- > >> ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
> >This is, of course, a sensationalism that reveals > >or twists nothing that isn't already known. Most > >of this also has nothing to do with the Almanach > >de Gotha. As editor/publisher, Mr Kennedy, has > >the support of many of the heads of European > >dynasties in this project (and two crowned > >kings)--all one has to do is look at the Patronage > >Committe in the 1999 edition.
> Do you believe that he received written permission for the
> The new edition has > >also received raves in aristocratic circles in > >Europe and is a fine improvement on the "Pike" > >edition.
> Oh yes, from whom? Which "circles" - those of the various dead people > named as living?
> Ms Pike should perhaps better not claim > >anything against anyone considering the details > >that have emerged on her "careers" before Gotha, > >and her continued unprofessional and incorrect > >manner during and after her "work" with the Gotha. > >She is unimportant to the publication and has > >nothing to do with the new edition. > >As to Mr Sainty, who has used the title of > >Almanach de Gotha (the title belongs to the > >original publishers--Perthes in Germany--who are > >very satisfied with the new Gotha) without right > >as well as information from the 1998 Gotha > >(including some of the errors!) on his websites, > >there is really nothing to be said--he seems to > >say it all himself. It is obvious why Mr Sainty > >is so interested in promoting this worthless > >information. Certainly, the Houses listed in the > >Almanach de Gotha are familiar with the attitudes > >of the press and care nothing about this absurd > >subversion of Mr Kennedy, a trusted editor of an > >important work. > >RD
> So Kennedy's poodle has come out snapping. If Ms Pike's career was so > discreditable, how come that unlike Mr kennedy's it does not fill > some 50+ newspaper stories in the past 6 years? Why did the > distinguished Mr Kennedy associate himself with it?
> Or is it not actually the case that Ms Pike worked on this for 8 years, > that Kennedy came on board less than 8 months before publication which > he forced through prematurely before final proofing made it possible > to change the errors, that it was he who checked and sent the proofs > to be printed (including the bizarre layout of the Bourbon family with > the Orleans family first), and it was he who insisted on the perversion > of the original Gotha policy on the Russian entry?
> But what this nasty unidentified poodle does not explain is how Mr kennedy > managed to find himself the owner of this company when he came into the > project in August 1997, while when he registered the shareholdings of > what was supposed to be a company owned jointly by him and Ms Pike, he > only registered his own shares and did not register any at all for her. > How does this poodle explain why Ms Pike did not even know that he had > not registered her shares until she did a company search when, as majority > shareholder (or so she believed) she decided to fire him from the company.
> Instead of answering these charges, he just responds by making other > unwarranted personal attacks.
> As for my articles on royal families, the histories bear little relationship > at all (thankfully) to the histories published by Mr Kennedy, replete > with errors that they are even in the revised edition. That Ms Pike, who > drew up these genealgies supplied them to me for proofing and consented to > their use I do not deny. But then they appear with accurate information > thanks to various contributors to atr who helped me. This informtion is > in the public sphere and the layout of these texts does not in fact mimic > the Gotha as the generations are indicated with different symbols, the > details of births and deaths are accurate, and the Orders are given > correctly. What is fascinating to see is that the entire Bourbon family > entry now relies on the text I supplied, with the correct Orders, names, > etc, without any thanks or acknowledgment - this text was not used in the > 1998 edition for which I supplied it to Ms Pike, but has been taken in > its entirety by mr Kennedy for his 1999 edition. Unfortunately, he still > fails to follow the original Gotha format which put the branches in > genealogical'order, but instead (out of ignorance one must assume) reverses > it with Orleans followed by Parma and then the Two Sicilies, a nonsensical > ordering. Even if he decided unilaterally, and against all precedent in > serious genealogical works, that France should come first, putting the most > junior line of the Bourbon family, that of Parma, ahead of the Two > Sicilies, is idiotic. Why are illegitimate issue listed as if they were > legitimate, in the same typeface?
> And he still gets things wrong with Orders (such as his description of the > Archduke Otto's orders, which include the "Papal Gregorius Order" which > should be Gd Crosss Papal Order of St Gregory the Great). Why does he > list the dynastic Orders of some dynasties and not others? Why does he > list some individuals memberships but not others?
> Why has he followed British publications in the case of the Royal Family > of Great Britain? Would it not have been worth stating that the Queen is > also Sovereign of some 17 other states and recognize that she is Queen of > Canada, of Australia etc. There may be Canadian readers who would like > this acknowledged. We are told that Prince Michael of Kent (Kennedy's > sometime employer) became legally dead when he married a Catholic. Aside > from the fact that those who know something of Mr Kennedy's employment > with the Prince might assume some unpleasant bias here, if Princess > Michael became an Anglican there would be no barrier to his succession. > But then he has killed off the Earl of Downpatrick and the Crown Prince > of Hannover - but how about the 100s of other living descendants of > the Electress Sophia who have married Catholics, why are they not killed > off by mr Kennedy? Or does he actually not understand the Act of Settlement? > What would Mr Kennedy introduce next, the Resurrection? Why also are the > Orders held by foreign royalty listed, but not those by British?
> On what basis does he claim that the majority > of French Monarchists consider the Count of Paris to be Henri VI, king > of France and Navarre. Has he done a survey? It may be true that most > ordinary Frenchmen if asked who the royalist claimant is may well respond > the Count of Paris, but the majority of Frenchmen and women are not > monarchists. The tiny number of monarchists/royalists are of divided > loyalties and no survey of any kind has been done to determine the > numbers which support one or other claimant. This kind of statement > seriously detracts from any pretensions to scholarship.
> As for the Appendix on this issue, for him to claim that the Count of > Paris was recognized as the legal heir of Henri V is untrue > (need one be surprised that adherence to fact is difficult
What Guy Stair Sainty says re the so-called Almanach de Gotha seems to be a compendium of accurate, well thought out and written comments.
As for me, when I think of a modern Gotha I think of the GHdA, and not what I consider to be a book that merely has the title of the old series while lacking many of it's merits.
If by this you're referring to "sascha5...@my-dejanews.com", he may not have identified himself publicly, but he's posting from somewhere inside the University of Colorado. Does that help in identifying him?
> In article <7hvmss$v0...@nnrp1.deja.com>, sascha5...@my-dejanews.com says...
> >In article <7hvbrb$n4...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > > astya...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > >> In article <7hrlv0$2...@drn.newsguy.com>, > >> Guy Stair Sainty <G...@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> > In the Diary of yesterday's London Times, the > >following item appeared:
> >> > "THE ballroom of Claridge's swelled with > >Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parma and > >> > other Euro-exotics celebrating the relaunch of > >Almanach de Gotha - the first > >> > time the stud book of continental grandees has > >been published since Jerry > >> > overran the East.
> >> > "Some months on I learn that its editor, > >Charlotte Pike, a former toff-tester at > >> > Burke's Peerage, is less than chuffed with its > >publisher, John Kennedy. She is > >> > taking legal action in a copyright dispute > >which could rock the almanac.
> >> > "Kennedy (formely Gvozdenovic) is intriguing. > >He was the private secretary to > >> > Prince Michael of Kent, with whom he parted on > >bad terms.
> >> > "He is also a one-time Tory hopeful, who > >suggested that he was engaged to a > >> > Balkan princess. The princess seemed rather > >surprised by his bold announcement."
> >> > There is more to this story that will no doubt > >be revealed both about > >> > this suit and Mr Kennedy (the subject of many > >newspaper articles in the > >> > British press concerning his activities with a > >Libyan Prince, his arrest, > >> > his involvement with a Yugoslav businessman > >and a suit for defamation > >> > against the Sunday Times that Kennedy never > >pursued, etc).
> >> > Kennedy, born Gvozdenovic (of Montenegrin > >Serbian ancestry) was allegedly, > >> > according to some newspaper reports, involved > >with the charming leadership > >> > of the Republic Srbska - the unrecognized rump > >led by an indicted war > >> > criminal - and even at one time with > >Milosevic, although Mr Kennedy has denied > >> > this.
> >> > Ms Pike's (the Plaintiff) suit alleges that > >“upon the formation of the company > >> > equity should be issued and divided as a > >percentage of 51% to the Plaintiff and > >> > 25% to the Defendant, 24% to remain unissued > >with the purpose that it may be > >> > used to attract future equity investment. The > >effect of this provision was that > >> > the Plaintiff was entitled to 67.1% of all > >shares actually issued….. > >> I regret to say that I had not yet discovered > >atr when you people were > >> talking about the '98 edition. What is > >the overall feeling in atr towards > >> John Kennedy, Charlotte Pike, and the > >resuscitated de Gotha?
> >> --- J.M.K.
> >> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- > >> ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
> >This is, of course, a sensationalism that reveals > >or twists nothing that isn't already known. Most > >of this also has nothing to do with the Almanach > >de Gotha. As editor/publisher, Mr Kennedy, has > >the support of many of the heads of European > >dynasties in this project (and two crowned > >kings)--all one has to do is look at the Patronage > >Committe in the 1999 edition.
> Do you believe that he received written permission for the
> The new edition has > >also received raves in aristocratic circles in > >Europe and is a fine improvement on the "Pike" > >edition.
> Oh yes, from whom? Which "circles" - those of the various dead people > named as living?
> Ms Pike should perhaps better not claim > >anything against anyone considering the details > >that have emerged on her "careers" before Gotha, > >and her continued unprofessional and incorrect > >manner during and after her "work" with the Gotha. > >She is unimportant to the publication and has > >nothing to do with the new edition. > >As to Mr Sainty, who has used the title of > >Almanach de Gotha (the title belongs to the > >original publishers--Perthes in Germany--who are > >very satisfied with the new Gotha) without right > >as well as information from the 1998 Gotha > >(including some of the errors!) on his websites, > >there is really nothing to be said--he seems to > >say it all himself. It is obvious why Mr Sainty > >is so interested in promoting this worthless > >information. Certainly, the Houses listed in the > >Almanach de Gotha are familiar with the attitudes > >of the press and care nothing about this absurd > >subversion of Mr Kennedy, a trusted editor of an > >important work. > >RD
> So Kennedy's poodle has come out snapping. If Ms Pike's career was so > discreditable, how come that unlike Mr kennedy's it does not fill > some 50+ newspaper stories in the past 6 years? Why did the > distinguished Mr Kennedy associate himself with it?
> Or is it not actually the case that Ms Pike worked on this for 8 years, > that Kennedy came on board less than 8 months before publication which > he forced through prematurely before final proofing made it possible > to change the errors, that it was he who checked and sent the proofs > to be printed (including the bizarre layout of the Bourbon family with > the Orleans family first), and it was he who insisted on the perversion > of the original Gotha policy on the Russian entry?
> But what this nasty unidentified poodle does not explain is how Mr kennedy > managed to find himself the owner of this company when he came into the > project in August 1997, while when he registered the shareholdings of > what was supposed to be a company owned jointly by him and Ms Pike, he > only registered his own shares and did not register any at all for her. > How does this poodle explain why Ms Pike did not even know that he had > not registered her shares until she did a company search when, as majority > shareholder (or so she believed) she decided to fire him from the company.
> Instead of answering these charges, he just responds by making other > unwarranted personal attacks.
> As for my articles on royal families, the histories bear little relationship > at all (thankfully) to the histories published by Mr Kennedy, replete > with errors that they are even in the revised edition. That Ms Pike, who > drew up these genealgies supplied them to me for proofing and consented to > their use I do not deny. But then they appear with accurate information > thanks to various contributors to atr who helped me. This informtion is > in the public sphere and the layout of these texts does not in fact mimic > the Gotha as the generations are indicated with different symbols, the > details of births and deaths are accurate, and the Orders are given > correctly. What is fascinating to see is that the entire Bourbon family > entry now relies on the text I supplied, with the correct Orders, names, > etc, without any thanks or acknowledgment - this text was not used in the > 1998 edition for which I supplied it to Ms Pike, but has been taken in > its entirety by mr Kennedy for his 1999 edition. Unfortunately, he still > fails to follow the original Gotha format which put the branches in > genealogical'order, but instead (out of ignorance one must assume) reverses > it with Orleans followed by Parma and then the Two Sicilies, a nonsensical > ordering. Even if he decided unilaterally, and against all precedent in > serious genealogical works, that France should come first, putting the most > junior line of the Bourbon family, that of Parma, ahead of the Two > Sicilies, is idiotic. Why are illegitimate issue listed as if they were > legitimate, in the same typeface?
> And he still gets things wrong with Orders (such as his description of the > Archduke Otto's orders, which include the "Papal Gregorius Order" which > should be Gd Crosss Papal Order of St Gregory the Great). Why does he > list the dynastic Orders of some dynasties and not others? Why does he > list some individuals memberships but not others?
> Why has he followed British publications in the case of the Royal Family > of Great Britain? Would it not have been worth stating that the Queen is > also Sovereign of some 17 other states and recognize that she is Queen of > Canada, of Australia etc. There may be Canadian readers who would like > this acknowledged. We are told that Prince Michael of Kent (Kennedy's > sometime employer) became legally dead when he married a Catholic. Aside > from the fact that those who know something of Mr Kennedy's employment > with the Prince might assume some unpleasant bias here, if Princess > Michael became an Anglican there would be no barrier to his succession. > But then he has killed off the Earl of Downpatrick and the Crown Prince > of Hannover - but how about the 100s of other living descendants of > the Electress Sophia who have married Catholics, why are they not killed > off by mr Kennedy? Or does he actually not understand the Act of Settlement? > What would Mr Kennedy introduce next, the Resurrection? Why also are the > Orders held by foreign royalty listed, but not those by British?
> On what basis does he claim that the majority > of French Monarchists consider the Count of Paris to be Henri VI, king > of France and Navarre. Has he done a survey? It may be true that most > ordinary Frenchmen if asked who the royalist claimant is may well respond > the Count of Paris, but the majority of Frenchmen and women are not > monarchists. The tiny number of monarchists/royalists are of divided > loyalties and no survey of any kind has been done to determine the > numbers which support one or other claimant. This kind of statement > seriously detracts from any pretensions to scholarship.
> As for the Appendix on this issue, for him to claim that the Count of > Paris was recognized as the legal heir of Henri V is untrue > (need one be surprised that adherence to fact is difficult
> sascha5...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > : In article <7hvbrb$n4...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > : astya...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > : > In article <7hrlv0$2...@drn.newsguy.com>, > : > Guy Stair Sainty <G...@newsguy.com> wrote: > : > > In the Diary of yesterday's London Times, the > : following item appeared: > : > > > : > > "THE ballroom of Claridge's swelled with > : Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parma and > : > > other Euro-exotics celebrating the relaunch of > : Almanach de Gotha - the first > : > > time the stud book of continental grandees has > : been published since Jerry > : > > overran the East. > : > > > : > > "Some months on I learn that its editor, > : Charlotte Pike, a former toff-tester at > : > > Burke's Peerage, is less than chuffed with its > : publisher, John Kennedy. She is > : > > taking legal action in a copyright dispute > : which could rock the almanac. > : > > > : > > "Kennedy (formely Gvozdenovic) is intriguing. > : He was the private secretary to > : > > Prince Michael of Kent, with whom he parted on > : bad terms. > : > > > : > > "He is also a one-time Tory hopeful, who > : suggested that he was engaged to a > : > > Balkan princess. The princess seemed rather > : surprised by his bold announcement." > : > > > : > > There is more to this story that will no doubt > : be revealed both about > : > > this suit and Mr Kennedy (the subject of many > : newspaper articles in the > : > > British press concerning his activities with a > : Libyan Prince, his arrest, > : > > his involvement with a Yugoslav businessman > : and a suit for defamation > : > > against the Sunday Times that Kennedy never > : pursued, etc). > : > > > : > > Kennedy, born Gvozdenovic (of Montenegrin > : Serbian ancestry) was allegedly, > : > > according to some newspaper reports, involved > : with the charming leadership > : > > of the Republic Srbska - the unrecognized rump > : led by an indicted war > : > > criminal - and even at one time with > : Milosevic, although Mr Kennedy has denied > : > > this. > : > > > : > > Ms Pike's (the Plaintiff) suit alleges that > : “upon the formation of the company > : > > equity should be issued and divided as a > : percentage of 51% to the Plaintiff and > : > > 25% to the Defendant, 24% to remain unissued > : with the purpose that it may be > : > > used to attract future equity investment. The > : effect of this provision was that > : > > the Plaintiff was entitled to 67.1% of all > : shares actually issued….. > : > I regret to say that I had not yet discovered > : atr when you people were > : > talking about the '98 edition. What is > : the overall feeling in atr towards > : > John Kennedy, Charlotte Pike, and the > : resuscitated de Gotha? > : > > : > --- J.M.K. > : > > : > : This is, of course, a sensationalism that reveals > : or twists nothing that isn't already known. Most > : of this also has nothing to do with the Almanach > : de Gotha. As editor/publisher, Mr Kennedy, has > : the support of many of the heads of European > : dynasties in this project (and two crowned > : kings)--all one has to do is look at the Patronage > : Committe in the 1999 edition.
> Yes,where he credits Prince Nicholas Romanovsky-Sheremeteff > with a name and title to which he is not entitled,having > o,posed a genealogical absurdity on the text to favor the man.
> : The new edition has > : also received raves in aristocratic circles in > : Europe and is a fine improvement on the "Pike" > : edition. Ms Pike should perhaps better not claim > : anything against anyone considering the details > : that have emerged on her "careers" before Gotha, > : and her continued unprofessional and incorrect > : manner during and after her "work" with the Gotha. > : She is unimportant to the publication and has > : nothing to do with the new edition.
> Well,the volume was promoted with leaflets(I have one) that > claimed it was edited by Pike,proofread by Williamson, > overseen by Perthes...and said not a thing about Kennedy.
> : As to Mr Sainty, who has used the title of > : Almanach de Gotha (the title belongs to the > : original publishers--Perthes in Germany--who are > : very satisfied with the new Gotha) without right > : as well as information from the 1998 Gotha > : (including some of the errors!) on his websites, > : there is really nothing to be said--he seems to > : say it all himself. It is obvious why Mr Sainty > : is so interested in promoting this worthless > : information. Certainly, the Houses listed in the > : Almanach de Gotha are familiar with the attitudes > : of the press and care nothing about this absurd > : subversion of Mr Kennedy, a trusted editor of an > : important work. > : RD
> Could you perhaps declare any affiliation of your own?
You obviously have an outdated early leaflet (I have it too)--you must have the 1998 sales blurb where Pike promoted herself and claimed the edition had been checked by Williamson (he denies this). Kennedy was the publisher and so remained in the background as is usual. Are you perhaps not aware that there is a 1999 edition--that is the Patronage Committee I refer to. The 1999 leaflet--prepared for the Kennedy Gotha also does not boast about Kennedy--he just got on as editor and did the job. He even removed his own name from the cover of the new book. As to my affiliation--I am a Professor of European Studies, a literary and film critic and a genealogist who focuses on Central European nobility. I celebrated the return of the Gotha when I first heard about it and considered the first edition a good try, considering the amount of work that was needed to cover the last half-century of developments. I also learned of the problems and Ms Pike etc. and mourned the silly sabotage of what might have been a real coup. I am all the more pleased that the new Gotha has continued and that edition under Kennedy alone is so impressive (traditional 1930s typeset and buff-tone papers; corrections of the earlier errors; addition of Holy See information and Ottoman Empire lines) and is now supported by even more royal houses (3 Habsburg Archdukes, etc.). Perhaps those of us interested in the material it offers can now use it as a revitalized and important source. Given the problems of the world, I find the scandal-sheet attitude toward the publication of A BOOK rather pointless, don't you?
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
I don't really know much about the other affairs to which you refer, but at least Mr. Kennedy has managed to produce two editions of the book; I was aware of Miss Pike promising to produce it for at least six years. On your excellent website (which I recommend to all interested in these topics, by-the-bye), you have a list of Gotha-ble families etc. Were you involved with Miss Pike's attempt at some point? In any case, I do not know if this is a proper forum for airing all this sort of thing. The sneering tone toward Miss Pike, Mr. Kennedy, and those listed in the Gotha in the article you cited is, I think, proff, that anything of this sort is better handled in the courts than the papers (or even newsgroups!). Please pardon this intervention from an admirer or your work.
Yours ever,
Charles A. Coulombe
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
> fails to follow the original Gotha format which put the branches in > genealogical'order, but instead (out of ignorance one must assume) reverses > it with Orleans followed by Parma and then the Two Sicilies, a nonsensical > ordering.
I think the answer to that might be quite prosaic. In keeping with the alphabetical order of the rest of the listings, the editors of the de Gotha simply arranged the nonreigning branches of the House of Bourbon according to alphabetical order within the "Bourbon" heading. I don't know that we need to read any special meaning in the order.
> The tiny number of monarchists/royalists
I don't know that we need to be that pessimistic. I heard that a survey of Parisians some years back determined that around 14% would be interested in a return to monarchy. I would imagine that figure would be a good deal higher in the traditional countryside.
This is, of course, beside the point, but bear in mind that a good deal of Frenchmen don't really have any strong feelings at all as to the question of monarchy vs. republic. These "fence-straddlers" are the ones we need to cultivate.
> As for the Appendix on this issue, for him to claim that the Count of > Paris was recognized as the legal heir of Henri V is untrue
I read in the "Bourbon" article in Encyclopedia Britannica (a non-primary source, I know) and in a book on modern French royalism (I forget the title and author, though I could check up on this) that most French Legitimists, on the death of Henry V, transferred their loyalties to the first Comte de Paris. According to these sources, the "Blancs d' Espagne" constituted a minority remnant of the original Legitimist following.
I suppose one could argue from this that the Comte de Paris was recognized by many as heir to Henry V, but the recognition was clearly not unanimous. Thus, it would be incorrect to make a blanket statement, as Kennedy has, concerning the loyalties of monarchists in 1883. He would, however, have been accurate if he had said that "the Comte de Paris was recognized by *most* monarchists as the pretender after the death of Henry V in 1883." I can't speak for monarchists these days, though. As you said, no survey has been done of modern French monarchists.
> Nonetheless the design and layout are better, the typeface a better design > (all these selected by Mr Kennedy in the 98 edition) and each page now > has a family heading. One only wishes that he had exercised some scholarly > rigor in checking the historical facts, and had followed the original > Gotha layout.
I have the '98 edition already. Would you, all in all, say that the '99 edition is a worthwhile purchase for someone who already has the '98?
--- J.M.K.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
sascha5...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > In article <FC0JEr....@news2.new-york.net>, > l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote: > > sascha5...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > : In article <7hvbrb$n4...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > > : astya...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > : > In article <7hrlv0$2...@drn.newsguy.com>, > > : > Guy Stair Sainty <G...@newsguy.com> wrote: > > : > > In the Diary of yesterday's London Times, the > > : following item appeared: > > : > > > > : > > "THE ballroom of Claridge's swelled with > > : Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parma and > > : > > other Euro-exotics celebrating the relaunch of > > : Almanach de Gotha - the first > > : > > time the stud book of continental grandees has > > : been published since Jerry > > : > > overran the East. > > : > > > > : > > "Some months on I learn that its editor, > > : Charlotte Pike, a former toff-tester at > > : > > Burke's Peerage, is less than chuffed with its > > : publisher, John Kennedy. She is > > : > > taking legal action in a copyright dispute > > : which could rock the almanac. > > : > > > > : > > "Kennedy (formely Gvozdenovic) is intriguing. > > : He was the private secretary to > > : > > Prince Michael of Kent, with whom he parted on > > : bad terms. > > : > > > > : > > "He is also a one-time Tory hopeful, who > > : suggested that he was engaged to a > > : > > Balkan princess. The princess seemed rather > > : surprised by his bold announcement." > > : > > > > : > > There is more to this story that will no doubt > > : be revealed both about > > : > > this suit and Mr Kennedy (the subject of many > > : newspaper articles in the > > : > > British press concerning his activities with a > > : Libyan Prince, his arrest, > > : > > his involvement with a Yugoslav businessman > > : and a suit for defamation > > : > > against the Sunday Times that Kennedy never > > : pursued, etc). > > : > > > > : > > Kennedy, born Gvozdenovic (of Montenegrin > > : Serbian ancestry) was allegedly, > > : > > according to some newspaper reports, involved > > : with the charming leadership > > : > > of the Republic Srbska - the unrecognized rump > > : led by an indicted war > > : > > criminal - and even at one time with > > : Milosevic, although Mr Kennedy has denied > > : > > this. > > : > > > > : > > Ms Pike's (the Plaintiff) suit alleges that > > : “upon the formation of the company > > : > > equity should be issued and divided as a > > : percentage of 51% to the Plaintiff and > > : > > 25% to the Defendant, 24% to remain unissued > > : with the purpose that it may be > > : > > used to attract future equity investment. The > > : effect of this provision was that > > : > > the Plaintiff was entitled to 67.1% of all > > : shares actually issued….. > > : > I regret to say that I had not yet discovered > > : atr when you people were > > : > talking about the '98 edition. What is > > : the overall feeling in atr towards > > : > John Kennedy, Charlotte Pike, and the > > : resuscitated de Gotha? > > : > > > : > --- J.M.K. > > : > > > : > > : This is, of course, a sensationalism that reveals > > : or twists nothing that isn't already known. Most > > : of this also has nothing to do with the Almanach > > : de Gotha. As editor/publisher, Mr Kennedy, has > > : the support of many of the heads of European > > : dynasties in this project (and two crowned > > : kings)--all one has to do is look at the Patronage > > : Committe in the 1999 edition.
> > Yes,where he credits Prince Nicholas Romanovsky-Sheremeteff > > with a name and title to which he is not entitled,having > > o,posed a genealogical absurdity on the text to favor the man.
> > : The new edition has > > : also received raves in aristocratic circles in > > : Europe and is a fine improvement on the "Pike" > > : edition. Ms Pike should perhaps better not claim > > : anything against anyone considering the details > > : that have emerged on her "careers" before Gotha, > > : and her continued unprofessional and incorrect > > : manner during and after her "work" with the Gotha. > > : She is unimportant to the publication and has > > : nothing to do with the new edition.
> > Well,the volume was promoted with leaflets(I have one) that > > claimed it was edited by Pike,proofread by Williamson, > > overseen by Perthes...and said not a thing about Kennedy.
> > : As to Mr Sainty, who has used the title of > > : Almanach de Gotha (the title belongs to the > > : original publishers--Perthes in Germany--who are > > : very satisfied with the new Gotha) without right > > : as well as information from the 1998 Gotha > > : (including some of the errors!) on his websites, > > : there is really nothing to be said--he seems to > > : say it all himself. It is obvious why Mr Sainty > > : is so interested in promoting this worthless > > : information. Certainly, the Houses listed in the > > : Almanach de Gotha are familiar with the attitudes > > : of the press and care nothing about this absurd > > : subversion of Mr Kennedy, a trusted editor of an > > : important work. > > : RD
> > Could you perhaps declare any affiliation of your own?
> You obviously have an outdated early leaflet (I have it too)--you must > have the 1998 sales blurb where Pike promoted herself and claimed the > edition had been checked by Williamson (he denies this). Kennedy was > the publisher and so remained in the background as is usual. Are you > perhaps not aware that there is a 1999 edition--that is the Patronage > Committee I refer to. The 1999 leaflet--prepared for the Kennedy Gotha > also does not boast about Kennedy--he just got on as editor and did the > job. He even removed his own name from the cover of the new book. > As to my affiliation--I am a Professor of European Studies, a literary > and film critic and a genealogist who focuses on Central European > nobility. I celebrated the return of the Gotha when I first heard about > it and considered the first edition a good try, considering the amount > of work that was needed to cover the last half-century of developments. > I also learned of the problems and Ms Pike etc. and mourned the silly > sabotage of what might have been a real coup. I am all the more pleased > that the new Gotha has continued and that edition under Kennedy alone is > so impressive (traditional 1930s typeset and buff-tone papers; > corrections of the earlier errors; addition of Holy See information and > Ottoman Empire lines) and is now supported by even more royal houses (3 > Habsburg Archdukes, etc.). Perhaps those of us interested in the > material it offers can now use it as a revitalized and important source. > Given the problems of the world, I find the scandal-sheet attitude > toward the publication of A BOOK rather pointless, don't you?
It would perhaps be on time that you revealed your name? Scandal-sheet attitude or not, this is a forum for discussions on royalty and royalty-related issues. There are many genealogists and historians here who are interested in genealogical works and find it useful to discuss among others Almanach de Gotha. Although I am pleased that it has returned, there still are so many mistakes which need to be commented on. The history of AdeG is interesting in itself, so certainly thee is a point in discussing a possible court case.
In article <7i28l9$q8...@nnrp1.deja.com>, canne...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > After a search of the net, I have GRAVE CONCERNS about your motives, > Mr. Sainty. Much of the "information" you have posted . . .ie. the text > of the writ is not published in the Times. Where, may I ask, have you > gotten this "inside" information? How do you know it reliable?
> Out of general interest, are you a party to this case? If so why do you > not say so? If not, why are you so obsessive? This forum is supposed to > be a cultured enviroment for royal matters, not a forum for personal > vendettas. I do not know you personally, but you seem to be a spiteful > kind of guy . . . whats your problem?
Speaking of personal attacks...
To someone like me who comes here mainly for the bits of current news, it appears that Mr. Sainty was reporting on a serious struggle going on behind the scenes of a royal publication. Though it is clear from his comments that he is no friend of Mr. Kennedy, he was, as is often the case with Mr. Sainty, adding what he knows concerning a recent bit of royal-related news. If you have been reading ATR for any length of time, you would know that Mr. Sainty is often in a position to know more about these sorts of goings-on, and that he always has a very definite opinion. Whether I agree with his assessments or not, I for one am glad he shares what he knows -and thinks- about various royal matters.
I find it interesting that Mr. Sainty's bit of news and commentary has drawn such emotionally charged reactions from at least two folks, and could not fail to note that both of these folks, unlike Mr. Sainty, prefer to vent their deeply felt "GRAVE CONCERNS" about his remarks from behind a veil of anonymity. As one who was taken to task behind the scenes for my scathing comments on the 1998 Gotha, I am not unaware that there are folks out there in ATR-land who have a stake in the Gotha's good reception. Therefore I am assuming that those who are taking issue with Mr. Sainty are no less partisan than he is on this matter; the difference being that at least he is open about it.
sascha5...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > I am all the more pleased > that the new Gotha has continued and that edition under Kennedy alone is > so impressive (traditional 1930s typeset and buff-tone papers; > corrections of the earlier errors; addition of Holy See information and > Ottoman Empire lines) and is now supported by even more royal houses (3 > Habsburg Archdukes, etc.). Perhaps those of us interested in the > material it offers can now use it as a revitalized and important source.
The Gotha is certainly prettier this year, and several glaring errors were corrected. However, as a genealogical reference book, it continues to be laden with errors, omissions and inconsistencies.
We need to be honest and open here about its flaws here, as well as the good points. Here is what I found, just quickly flipping through the first 30 pages (Anhalt article and the start of the Austria article):
In both 1998 and 1999 editions:
Wrong year of death for Alexandra of Anhalt. Her second husband was born 3 Feb 1917, not " ... 1916." Archduchess Michaela's second marriage is not mentioned. Her brother, Archduke Karl's civil m date is not given. Neither Archduke Carl Philip's wives or child are mentioned. Civil m dates of sisters Adss Alexandra and Constanza are omitted. Wrong date of death for Emperor Karl's brother Archduke Maximilian. Wrong date of birth for the above's grandson and namesake. The Gotha is assigning to Archduke Maximilian the birthdate of his first cousin, Archduke Philipp. Year of Archduke Guntram's marriage is wrong. For the birth date of Pss. Maria Cristina of the Two Sicilies, wife of of Archduke Peter Ferdinand, the Gotha gives a birth date which is actually that of her sister, Princess Maria Pia.
On the other hand, I also note these 1999 improvements in the same pages:
Edda of Anhalt's husband's place and date of birth 1998 edition: ... 1937; 1999 edition: Darmstadt, 15 Apr 1936 Archduchess Isabella's 1997 marriage is mentioned. Archduchess Anna-Eugenie's 1997 death is mentioned. Archduke Ramon's and Archduke Istvan's families were brought up to date. Archduchess Viridis's birth date is corrected. Archduchess Marie des Neiges's birth date is corrected. Peter & Lauren von Habsburg's "divorce" (which never happened) has been rectified. Ashley von Habsburg's year of birth is corrected. [Note that none of these items were "Gotha exclusives."]
Don't misunderstand. I am very happy to have a copy of the Gotha, and I heartily applaud the effort of those who obviously worked hard on it, and are trying to improve it. However, the lovely paper and the exquisite typeface does not "cut it" with those who are buying the book primarily as a reference tool. The new Gotha is certainly "a source of information," but unless some significant work is undertaken by somebody, it is premature and somewhat misleading at this time to acclaim the Gotha "a revitalized and important source."
> the new Gotha [snip] is now supported by even more royal houses > (3 Habsburg Archdukes, etc.).
Well, those Archdukes need to pay more than chi-chi lip-service, and get busy correcting and adding to the article on their family!! ;-)
In article <7i2c7v$sl...@nnrp1.deja.com>, astya...@my-dejanews.com says...
>Unfortunately, he still >> fails to follow the original Gotha format which put the branches in >> genealogical'order, but instead (out of ignorance one must assume) reverses >> it with Orleans followed by Parma and then the Two Sicilies, a nonsensical >> ordering.
>I think the answer to that might be quite prosaic. In keeping with the >alphabetical order of the rest of the listings, the editors of the de Gotha >simply arranged the nonreigning branches of the House of Bourbon according to >alphabetical order within the "Bourbon" heading. I don't know that we need >to read any special meaning in the order.
You are missing my point. From 1850 until 1944 the House of Bourbon entry followed the genealogical order of each branch. Kennedy has changed this and reversed the order - something he has not done with any other House. For example Tuscany does not precede Austria in the Habsburg family, the Kingdom of saxony is not put ahead of the Ernestine lines.
>> As for the Appendix on this issue, for him to claim that the Count of >> Paris was recognized as the legal heir of Henri V is untrue
>I read in the "Bourbon" article in Encyclopedia Britannica (a non-primary >source, I know) and in a book on modern French royalism (I forget the title >and author, though I could check up on this) that most French Legitimists, on >the death of Henry V, transferred their loyalties to the first Comte de >Paris. According to these sources, the "Blancs d' Espagne" constituted a >minority remnant of the original Legitimist following.
>I suppose one could argue from this that the Comte de Paris was recognized by >many as heir to Henry V, but the recognition was clearly not unanimous. >Thus, it would be incorrect to make a blanket statement, as Kennedy has, >concerning the loyalties of monarchists in 1883. He would, however, have >been accurate if he had said that "the Comte de Paris was recognized by >*most* monarchists as the pretender after the death of Henry V in 1883." I >can't speak for monarchists these days, though. As you said, no survey has >been done of modern French monarchists.
I agree that *most* monarchists in 1883 recognized the count of Paris, but this is not the same as being the "legal" heir.
>> Nonetheless the design and layout are better, the typeface a better design >> (all these selected by Mr Kennedy in the 98 edition) and each page now >> has a family heading. One only wishes that he had exercised some scholarly >> rigor in checking the historical facts, and had followed the original >> Gotha layout.
>I have the '98 edition already. Would you, all in all, say that the '99 >edition is a worthwhile purchase for someone who already has the '98?
Probably, as the 98 edition was so innaccurate as to be almost useless.
> I don't really know much about the other >affairs to which you refer, but at least Mr. >Kennedy has managed to produce two editions of the > book; I was aware of Miss Pike promising to >produce it for at least six years. On your >excellent website (which I recommend to all >interested in these topics, by-the-bye), you have >a list of Gotha-ble families etc. Were you >involved with Miss Pike's attempt at some point? >In any case, I do not know if this is a proper >forum for airing all this sort of thing. The >sneering tone toward Miss Pike, Mr. Kennedy, and >those listed in the Gotha in the article you cited >is, I think, proff, that anything of this sort is >better handled in the courts than the papers (or >even newsgroups!). Please pardon this >intervention from an admirer or your work.
>Yours ever,
>Charles A. Coulombe
Ms Pike did indeed work on this for many years, Kennedy came in in August 1997 as a business manager. The immediate consequence was that Prince Michael of Kent, who had agreed with Ms Pike to be patron of the edition, withdrew his patronage. Kennedy undertook to bring in outside financing and to organize the business, leaving the editing to Ms Pike. In November I was put in touch with Ms Pike and with the help of Steven Lavallee and Marlene Koenig & others we corrected the many errors in the texts that we were supplied with at that time - the first being Anhalt, and others including Austria (where there were many errors), and Bourbon which missed the whole Durcal and Gabriel lines altogether. We set about correcting these and sent them to Ms Pike. I also asked Willian Reitwiesner to write an article on mediatised houses and also asked that his name and the names of all those who had assisted be included in the acknowledgments. I gave these names to Mr Kennedy, but he failed to include most of them.
I also suggested the inclusion of the Sov Mil Order of Malta which had appeared in the diplomatic section of the old Gotha and, until the early 19th century, in the main text. I wrote an essay on the connections between the Gotha and the SMOM which Mr Kennedy and Ms Pike agreed to include. I also worked hard on producing a Part II B section, with Ms Pike's prior agreement, that would include those families which had reigned in Europe before 1815 and which in some cases had been included in the Gotha prior to 1806 (Gonzaga, & Piombino, and in others which had not been included - Bagration, Biron of Courland - but which had clearly been every bit as sovereign and much more significant than the mediatised houses). I pointed out that the present division into part I, II and III was a distinction that the editors made some 100 years after the foundation of the publication, and could be amended by the addition of Part II B (an earlier category) to relfect earlier policies without losing the authority. Ms Pike agreed.
After producing this material, the publication date was still scheduled some months off. I had been assured that it would be properly proofed, and most important that the historic Gotha editorial policy on such matters as Russia was being maintained. However, the publication had a financial crisis and I was asked if I could help. I supplied $10,000 to enable it to be printed but made it clear that I was doing so on the understanding that my work on Part II B would be included, and that the essay on the SMOM would likewise be included. I also expressed willingness to invest further in the publication and discussions were underway until the publication came out for me to invest a further $30,000. Since I had supplied so many corrections I was nervous about the forthcoming work, but was assured by Kennedy that they were ready. Kennedy agreed to supply me with 100 copies of the edition which it was my intention to circulate to a list supplied by the SMOM.
When the book came out I was horrified. My essay on the SMOM was omitted (although they had used my historical essay on the Order), and although they had included the missing lines of Bourbon that I had written for them they were misordered. The introduction by mr Kennedy was poorly written (with spelling and elemntary grammatical errors), the names of most of the contributors were admitted, the mediatised article by WAR omitted his name as author, and in the list of patrons Crown Prince Victor Emmanuel's name was feminised! The typeface was horrible, there were no headings on the pages, because of the system of numbering some generations were muddled with people appearing in the wrong generation, the dead were living and the living dead etc.
At the time I knew nothing about Mr Kennedy, and his past history. The Russian entry was what really shocked me as this reversed the policy of the historic Gotha and made claims for Prince Nicholas Romanoff (that he was senior male representative) that were quite simply false. Ms Pike told me that she was bullied into accepting this by Mr Kennedy.
The reaction to the publication was predictable - fury on the part of the German standesherren, the Grand Duchess Maria Nicolaievna, and contempt for its scholarship on the part of many genealogical specialists. The reality is that ms Pike's ambitions could never have been achieved without the participation of some serious scholarly support - David Williamson had withdrawn as soon as he found out Kennedy was on board and if I had not corrected the few entries with which I was suppplied the publication would have been even worse.
I was furious having provided the money for publication. I later paid a further $600 to the printer as he refused to return Ms Pike's files to her without the payment, although Mr Kennedy had by that time removed from her house all the remaining copies of the book, plus all the files and papers without her prior knowledge or authorization. She then tried to fire Kennedy, believing she owned 51% of the shares and him 25% which ahd been the terms of the original and only written agreement between them. She had asked him, as business manager, to deal with the registration of the company as she was a business neophyte - he agreed, but what she did not know was that he had only registered his own shares and none at all for her, and that she was named as company secretary and not even a director.
For her years of work had been wasted, and she has received nothing. Mr Kennedy controls the company, and its bank accounts - her idea, and the years she put into it has yeilded no return and Mr Kennedy, brought in just 8 months before the first edition came out, has everything!
Although Ms Pike had supplied some of her files to me, and I had corrected them, with the help of several atr correspondents, I now receive threatening letters from Kennedy because thoroughly revised (and with completely rewritten historical sections) I have made some of them available as free reference sources on my web site.
I admit to being disgusted by Mr Kennedy's behavior and having read the many newspaper articles about his past activities regret that neither Ms Pike nor I knew of this before she, and then later myself, became involved.
> Mr. Sainty seems to be playing a dishonest game. He appears to know a > great deal about this man Kennedy, but relates only a portion of the > facts.
How would it ever be possible to present "all the facts"? Exactly where would one stop. In any debate, one only presents a portion of the picture. That is our limited human state.
I'm sure that there are all kinds of good things which one could say about Mr. Kennedy (he doesn't kick dogs, washes behind his ears, and is not criminally associated with Libyan princes). Mr. Sainty ignored all these points, and instead concentrated on Mr. Kennedy's activities in the production of the present edition of the Almanach de Gotha.
> In article <7i2c7v$sl...@nnrp1.deja.com>, astya...@my-dejanews.com says...
> >Unfortunately, he still > >> fails to follow the original Gotha format which put the branches in > >> genealogical'order, but instead (out of ignorance one must assume) reverses > >> it with Orleans followed by Parma and then the Two Sicilies, a nonsensical > >> ordering.
> >I think the answer to that might be quite prosaic. In keeping with the > >alphabetical order of the rest of the listings, the editors of the de Gotha > >simply arranged the nonreigning branches of the House of Bourbon according to > >alphabetical order within the "Bourbon" heading. I don't know that we need > >to read any special meaning in the order.
> You are missing my point. From 1850 until 1944 the House of Bourbon > entry followed the genealogical order of each branch. Kennedy has > changed this and reversed the order - something he has not done with > any other House. For example Tuscany does not precede Austria in the > Habsburg family, the Kingdom of saxony is not put ahead of the Ernestine > lines.
That's a good point, and one that I hadn't noticed. I suppose Kennedy ought to be consistent with the order he has used elesewhere, and which was used in the original de Gotha.
> >> Nonetheless the design and layout are better, the typeface a better design > >> (all these selected by Mr Kennedy in the 98 edition) and each page now > >> has a family heading. One only wishes that he had exercised some scholarly > >> rigor in checking the historical facts, and had followed the original > >> Gotha layout.
> >I have the '98 edition already. Would you, all in all, say that the '99 > >edition is a worthwhile purchase for someone who already has the '98?
> Probably, as the 98 edition was so innaccurate as to be almost useless.
I'll hang on to it, though. It will probably become a collector's item.
--- J.M.K.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
GSS WROTE>>The immediate consequence was that Prince Michael of Kent, who had agreed with Ms Pike to be patron of the edition, withdrew his patronage. Kennedy undertook to bring in outside financing and to organize the business, leaving the editing to Ms Pike. <<
In fact rumour has it that he resigned because a flood of letters came in telling him that Pike had sold them books years before and pocketed the cash. Prince Lobkoicz had threatened to sue and had told Prince Michael as much. In fact it seems that Pike was desperate to stay out of jail and begged for someone to take over the project and help her get the book finished.
GSS WROTE>>In November I was put in touch with Ms Pike and with the help of Steven Lavallee and Marlene Koenig & others we corrected the many errors in the texts that we were supplied with at that time - the first being Anhalt, and others including Austria (where there were many errors),<<
Did Pike do anything for this book? Or did Kennedy write the whole thing, it sounds as though you are saying that many many errors were hers, so your previous attack on Kennedy is exposed - sure 1998 may have been out of date, but the whole Austria and Anhalt entries in 1999 are re-written and the heads of both families have endorsed it to the hilt by joining the Committee of Patrons - so the facts prove that you are wrong here.
GSS WROTE>>I wrote an essay on the connections between the Gotha and the SMOM which Mr Kennedy and Ms Pike agreed to include. I also worked hard on producing a Part IIB section, with Ms Pike's prior agreement, that would include those families which had reigned in Europe before 1815 and which in some cases had been included in the Gotha prior to 1806 (Gonzaga, & Piombino, and in others which had not been included - Bagration, Biron of Courland - but which had clearly been every bit as sovereign and much more<<
But these families do not belong in Part II, who do you think you are to promote them when you spend so much time attacking the Gotha for not following strict Gotha format and rules when it suits you - double standards!!
GSS WROTE>>After producing this material, the publication date was still scheduled some months off. I had been assured that it would be properly proofed, and most important that the historic Gotha editorial policy on such matters as Russia was being maintained.<<
So Pike tricked you? You said you got involved in November and the book was published in March, so it wasn’t rushed as you claimed - it was published months later.
GSS WROTE>>When the book came out I was horrified. My essay on the SMOM was omitted (although they had used my historical essay on the Order), and although they had included the missing lines of Bourbon that I had written for them they were misordered. The introduction by mr Kennedy was poorly written (with spelling and elemntary grammatical errors), the names of most of the contributors were admitted, the mediatised article by WAR omitted his name as author, and in the list of patrons Crown Prince Victor Emmanuel's name was feminised! The typeface was horrible, there were no headings on the pages, because of the system of numbering some generations were muddled with people appearing in the wrong generation, the dead were living and the living dead etc. <<
But you said Pike was the editor and had prepared all of this, some editor, why didn’t she proof read the book or check these details if what you say is correct?
GSS>>(with spelling and elemntary grammatical errors)<<
Some critic GSS - since when is elementary spelt elemntary - ha ha!!!!
GSS WROTE>>At the time I knew nothing about Mr Kennedy, and his past history. <<
What history, are you saying he is a criminal? He was cleared of any wrong doing, are you saying in fact he was guilty. As far as I can see he ran for Parliament in May 1997, approved and supported by the British Government Party, so there can’t have been anything wrong with him if he was fit to sit in the British legislature, the most revered Parliament in the world - if he was good enough for them it is a bit pompous for you to suggest he isn’t good enough for you - or is this just another smear?
GSS WROTE>>The reaction to the publication was predictable - fury on the part of the German standesherren, the Grand Duchess Maria Nicolaievna, and contempt for its scholarship on the part of many genealogical specialists. The reality is that ms Pike's ambitions could never have been achieved without the participation of some serious scholarly support<<
And thats you is it!!!!!So her research was rubbish - she won’t have much of a claim for damages!!!
GSS WROTE >>- David Williamson had withdrawn as soon as he found out Kennedy was on board and if I had not corrected the few entries with which I was supplied the publication would have been even worse. <<
So you say - what evidence do you have of this, this is just another smear. How can you speak for David Williamson?
GSS WROTE>>For her years of work had been wasted, and she has received nothing. Mr Kennedy controls the company, and its bank accounts - her idea, and the years she put into it has yielded no return and Mr Kennedy, brought in just 8 months before the first edition came out, has everything! <<
But her work was a waste of time anyway according to you - the sum total of what she produced was rubbish according to you - If you say Kennedy was involved from August 1997, then what you say about her getting nothing must be a lie. After all she has been selling non- existent books for years, what happened to that money, by your own accounts it was all gone when you had to make an investment. It would seem that you are not telling the whole truth again.
GSS WROTE>>Although Ms Pike had supplied some of her files to me, and I had corrected them, with the help of several atr correspondents, I now receive threatening letters from Kennedy because thoroughly revised (and with completely rewritten historical sections) I have made some of them available as free reference sources on my web site.<<
Why don’t you refer them to the Police? Or publish them, you keep making these claims but offer no evidence - there are always two sides to any story and you seem keen to use the courts and this forum both at the same time, why don’t you let the Courts decide, this is court case is not your case anyway.
Seems that the Public Health warning is that GSS wants the Gotha and will stop at nothing to get it. At least we know his postings are not legit, but an internal campaign! SCRC
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
The fact is Mr Sainty claims Mr Kennedy has done this that and the other, but elsewhere that it is Mrs Pike's book - it seems from the amount of work Mr Sainty claims Mr Kennedy has done, it is in fact his book anyway. from these postings she seems to have done none of it.
The order seems perfectly logical, it is alphabetical making it much easier to find, the branches are clearly marked at the head of every page, something Mrs Pike failed to when she was the editor.
BEWARE - it seems obvious that Mr Sainty is set on owning the Gotha, so he is hardly the best person to promote sales at the moment! Interesting thought though, from his comments on the 1999 edition, he has obviously purchased a copy!
I have both, they are both worth having, 1999 is better than 1998, what we have here is a battle for control, not an objective debate - I should declare myself, I do not wish to own the Gotha - do not expect to - and would not want to.
Lets get serious instead of this handbag fight!
SCRC
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Guy Sainty "instead concentrated on Mr. Kennedy's activities in
> the production of the present edition of the Almanach de Gotha. > > Noel S. McFerran"
But thats just the point, he didn't, the fact that Mr Kennedy was questioned by the police in 1995 when he was a senior member of the Royal Household has nothing to do with the Gotha by any stretch of the imagination.
It is pushing credibility to say that Sainty can't say everything about the man and that it is therefore justifiable to suggest that he was arrested, with the clear implication that this casts a shadow on his character, but then to say there is no need to mention that he was fully exonerated, the accuser was discredited as a phoney and a liar in the Sunday times, the accuser was charged with and went on trial for blackmail this year (where the case collapsed), that in the Kennedy situation a court rules that there was not a shred of evidence to suggest that Kennedy had been guilty of wrong doing, that members of the British Royal Family issued unprecedented statements of support, that Kennedy successfully sued newspapers and magazines (including Majesty!) who had misreported, that he was later chosen by the Governing Party in the UK to run in one of their toughest seats etc.
To suggest that all this detail is too much detail, and it is OK to say the man was arrested is absurd to any fair thinker. All this info is available on the net - clearly the point of mentioning the arrest and not the vindication is a smear, not a space saving exercise - get real!
What is clear is that Sainty and Kennedy are involved in a battle for ownership and control of the Gotha - this is important in understanding the context of postings.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
|
