On this day in 1910, Lucille S. Holladay was born.
She is the woman who married Frederick Owen Holladay and eventually adopted the baby who became my father.
Lucille died on Oct 3, 1942. I am not 100% clear on the causes of her death, and there is no one left in my family who can tell me any details.
I wish I knew her maiden name.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Monday, April 6, 2015
Staten Name
I got curious about my mother's maiden name (Staten) and found this:
Last name: Staten
This interesting surname of English origin is a dialectal variant of the locational name Statham in Cheshire, deriving from the dative plural "stoethum" of the old English pre 7th Century "stoeth" meaning "landing stage" i.e., "at the landing stage". The surname dates back to the late 13th Century, (see below). Further recordings include Richard de Stathum (1413), "Descriptive Catalogue of Derbyshire Charters", and Henry Stathum (1450), "Calendar of Inquisitiones Post Mortem, Nottinghamshire". Richard Staten married Alis Witsett on August 11th 1564 at St. Luke's Chelsea. Anne, daughter of Jespar Staten was christened on November 15th 1640 at St. Mary Magdalene, Old Fish Street, London, and William Staten married Mary Piceard on June 6th 1677 at Allhallows, London Wall. One Patrick Staton aged 26 yrs., a famine emigrant, sailed from Liverpool aboard the "Liverpool" bound for New York on June 18th 1846. The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of John de Statham, which was dated 1273, "The Hundred Rolls of Cambridgeshire", during the reign of King Edward 1st, "The Hammer of the Scots", 1272 - 1307. Surnames became necessary when governments introduced personal taxation. In England this was known as Poll Tax. Throughout the centuries, surnames in every country have continued to "develop" often leading to astonishing variants of the original spelling.
ENGLISH?! Mom would be horrified; she regarded the English as absolute SNOTS! Hahahahaha!
I also found this on Statham:
Where did the English Statham family come from? What is the English Statham family crest and coat of arms? When did the Statham family first arrive in the United States? Where did the various branches of the family go? What is the Statham family history?
The Anglo-Saxon name Statham comes from when the family resided in the settlement called Statham in the county of Cheshire. The surname Statham belongs to the large category of Anglo-Saxon habitation names, which are derived from pre-existing names for towns, villages, parishes, or farmsteads.
Yep, she'd be horrified. Given that her middle name was LeVaire, she was convinced she had some French going on in her family line, and she might have done. But she'd be put completely off her breakfast to know she was, at least in part, Anglo-Saxon! LOL!
Statham had some nice arms, I have to admit:
Last name: Staten
This interesting surname of English origin is a dialectal variant of the locational name Statham in Cheshire, deriving from the dative plural "stoethum" of the old English pre 7th Century "stoeth" meaning "landing stage" i.e., "at the landing stage". The surname dates back to the late 13th Century, (see below). Further recordings include Richard de Stathum (1413), "Descriptive Catalogue of Derbyshire Charters", and Henry Stathum (1450), "Calendar of Inquisitiones Post Mortem, Nottinghamshire". Richard Staten married Alis Witsett on August 11th 1564 at St. Luke's Chelsea. Anne, daughter of Jespar Staten was christened on November 15th 1640 at St. Mary Magdalene, Old Fish Street, London, and William Staten married Mary Piceard on June 6th 1677 at Allhallows, London Wall. One Patrick Staton aged 26 yrs., a famine emigrant, sailed from Liverpool aboard the "Liverpool" bound for New York on June 18th 1846. The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of John de Statham, which was dated 1273, "The Hundred Rolls of Cambridgeshire", during the reign of King Edward 1st, "The Hammer of the Scots", 1272 - 1307. Surnames became necessary when governments introduced personal taxation. In England this was known as Poll Tax. Throughout the centuries, surnames in every country have continued to "develop" often leading to astonishing variants of the original spelling.
ENGLISH?! Mom would be horrified; she regarded the English as absolute SNOTS! Hahahahaha!
I also found this on Statham:
Where did the English Statham family come from? What is the English Statham family crest and coat of arms? When did the Statham family first arrive in the United States? Where did the various branches of the family go? What is the Statham family history?
The Anglo-Saxon name Statham comes from when the family resided in the settlement called Statham in the county of Cheshire. The surname Statham belongs to the large category of Anglo-Saxon habitation names, which are derived from pre-existing names for towns, villages, parishes, or farmsteads.
Yep, she'd be horrified. Given that her middle name was LeVaire, she was convinced she had some French going on in her family line, and she might have done. But she'd be put completely off her breakfast to know she was, at least in part, Anglo-Saxon! LOL!
Statham had some nice arms, I have to admit:
Tartan Day!
Today in the US, it is National Tartan Day. Here are samples of tartans associated with the various branches of my own family line:
Hoban tartan:
MacArthur:
Maynard:
Perry:
Ross hunting:
Williams:
Richard Dawkins & Religious Rights
I just found this article:
Richard Dawkins: The State Needs To "Protect" Children From Religion & Their Parents
I had done a search for "Richard Dawkins religious rights" and this is what I found.
I posted this to my Facebook page and included the following statements:
I find this quite disturbing - and if pagans and heathens think he's not talking about them too, think again. HE ABSOLUTELY IS TALKING ABOUT YOU, pagans. If you follow a religion that involves absolutely any kind of belief in anything supernatural at all - gods, spirits, land wights, the fay, ancestral spirits, etc - then Dawkins and Krauss believe you shouldn't have any right to raise your kids in your chosen faith.
This is why I really prefer Neil DeGrasse Tyson over Krauss and Dawkins because at least Tyson has no interest in violating the First Amendment rights of American religious believers of any stripe whatsoever. Given some comments that Christopher Hitchens once made about a conversation he'd had with Dawkins, I don't think the same applies to Dawkins (who is, of course British; he was born in Kenya and did not grow up with the US Constitution as part of his cultural matrix). Hitch said that he was talking with Dawkins one day, and Hitch said that if all men and women had given up on religion SAVE ONE PERSON, Hitch would not go that extra step to convince that person to ditch religion. Dawkins was quite shocked at this, and he asked Hitch why he thought that way. Hitch indicated that first of all, although most superficially, if he did that then there would be nothing left to argue against. But that wasn't the main point. Hitch found it difficult to articulate further why he wouldn't force the issue and convince that one last believer to convert, but I think it's because Hitch understood that the individual's sovereign right to decide for him/herself must not be infringed in any way, and Hitch seemed to have an understanding that if he walked down that path, then he risked being subject to the same exact restriction upon his own right to choose to not believe.
It seems that Dawkins, if faced with the one final believer on earth, would go that extra step and do whatever he had to do in order to convince that person to give up religion. This is why I am often quite nervous that these people will lead their own disciples into repealing the First Amendment rights of American religious believers.
Pagans and Christians need to get past their differences and unite in solidarity against the disciples of Dawkins and Krauss. I don't regard Tyson as quite as much of an enemy, but I have to admit I'm unsure about Kaku and the late Carl Sagan. These people also have followers who may believe that because religion should not be respected, the legal rights of believers also should not be respected either, and thus all religions (including pagan ones; Dawkins would define all forms of paganism as a religion exactly the same as Christianity or Islam or Judaism) should be outlawed and the believers arrested and tossed into concentration camps for the good of society.
This does sound somewhat alarmist, but our world has seen this happen before. It could happen again.
Find a way to read or listen to his book The God Delusion. In the first 2 chapters, it will become clear that he is talking about ALL religious belief. ALL of it. I recommend the audio book, actually, because then one will be a little less likely to throw it across the room when one gets pissed off at what he says in the book.
There is something I've noticed about Richard Dawkins - he's an absolute control freak. He wants absolute, 100% control over the minds and thoughts of other people. He complains about how religions will define their terms (like "salvation" or "religion" or "God" or whatever) a certain way so as to support their views, yet he does exactly the same thing - he defines terms in such a way that the definitions support HIS views. Yet he refuses to admit he does this, and he refuses to admit that he is being very hypocritical in bitching about a religion doing the same thing he does yet coming to a very different conclusion.
He must be resisted, and fiercely. And yes, I must emphasize that he would regard pagans of any stripe at all - Wiccan, heathen, Asatru, Kemetic, Celtic, whatever - as being no different from Christians or Jews or Muslims. In fact, he'd find plenty to mock in pagan beliefs - he just hasn't gotten to it yet.
Please note that an American is also calling for restricting parents' rights to raise their children in the faith of their choice - that American being Lawrence Krauss. I am shocked by this. But he is using the excuse of "mental health" to deny this right in parents. I find this quite disturbing.
The problem here is that Krauss and Dawkins both define religion ONLY according to the worst possible examples of religion. For example, they define all of Islam according to the example of ISIS. They define all of Christianity according to the example of Westboro Baptist Church. I am sure they would define all of Asatru according to the example of the Aryan Brotherhood or something like that.
This is absolutely inaccurate, and the rights of religious Americans hang in the balance.
I will go so far to say that there are some pagans I know (mostly in the UU pagan world) who also decry "religion" but the problem here is, they seem to think they'd be the exception to Dawkins' definition of what religion is. They would be completely wrong about that. I have Dawkins' book The God Delusion on my Kindle (app) and on audio book, and in the first 2 or 3 chapters he makes it very clear how HE defines religion. According to HIS definition of the word - and of course, his definition is the only correct one - pagans are religious, so therefore he would believe that any pagan bringing up their kids in pagan ways are guilty of child abuse. He would therefore regard pagans as being every bit a danger to a child's mental health as any Christian or Muslim or Jew. I cannot, cannot emphasize this enough.
Richard Dawkins: The State Needs To "Protect" Children From Religion & Their Parents
I had done a search for "Richard Dawkins religious rights" and this is what I found.
I posted this to my Facebook page and included the following statements:
I find this quite disturbing - and if pagans and heathens think he's not talking about them too, think again. HE ABSOLUTELY IS TALKING ABOUT YOU, pagans. If you follow a religion that involves absolutely any kind of belief in anything supernatural at all - gods, spirits, land wights, the fay, ancestral spirits, etc - then Dawkins and Krauss believe you shouldn't have any right to raise your kids in your chosen faith.
This is why I really prefer Neil DeGrasse Tyson over Krauss and Dawkins because at least Tyson has no interest in violating the First Amendment rights of American religious believers of any stripe whatsoever. Given some comments that Christopher Hitchens once made about a conversation he'd had with Dawkins, I don't think the same applies to Dawkins (who is, of course British; he was born in Kenya and did not grow up with the US Constitution as part of his cultural matrix). Hitch said that he was talking with Dawkins one day, and Hitch said that if all men and women had given up on religion SAVE ONE PERSON, Hitch would not go that extra step to convince that person to ditch religion. Dawkins was quite shocked at this, and he asked Hitch why he thought that way. Hitch indicated that first of all, although most superficially, if he did that then there would be nothing left to argue against. But that wasn't the main point. Hitch found it difficult to articulate further why he wouldn't force the issue and convince that one last believer to convert, but I think it's because Hitch understood that the individual's sovereign right to decide for him/herself must not be infringed in any way, and Hitch seemed to have an understanding that if he walked down that path, then he risked being subject to the same exact restriction upon his own right to choose to not believe.
It seems that Dawkins, if faced with the one final believer on earth, would go that extra step and do whatever he had to do in order to convince that person to give up religion. This is why I am often quite nervous that these people will lead their own disciples into repealing the First Amendment rights of American religious believers.
Pagans and Christians need to get past their differences and unite in solidarity against the disciples of Dawkins and Krauss. I don't regard Tyson as quite as much of an enemy, but I have to admit I'm unsure about Kaku and the late Carl Sagan. These people also have followers who may believe that because religion should not be respected, the legal rights of believers also should not be respected either, and thus all religions (including pagan ones; Dawkins would define all forms of paganism as a religion exactly the same as Christianity or Islam or Judaism) should be outlawed and the believers arrested and tossed into concentration camps for the good of society.
This does sound somewhat alarmist, but our world has seen this happen before. It could happen again.
Find a way to read or listen to his book The God Delusion. In the first 2 chapters, it will become clear that he is talking about ALL religious belief. ALL of it. I recommend the audio book, actually, because then one will be a little less likely to throw it across the room when one gets pissed off at what he says in the book.
There is something I've noticed about Richard Dawkins - he's an absolute control freak. He wants absolute, 100% control over the minds and thoughts of other people. He complains about how religions will define their terms (like "salvation" or "religion" or "God" or whatever) a certain way so as to support their views, yet he does exactly the same thing - he defines terms in such a way that the definitions support HIS views. Yet he refuses to admit he does this, and he refuses to admit that he is being very hypocritical in bitching about a religion doing the same thing he does yet coming to a very different conclusion.
He must be resisted, and fiercely. And yes, I must emphasize that he would regard pagans of any stripe at all - Wiccan, heathen, Asatru, Kemetic, Celtic, whatever - as being no different from Christians or Jews or Muslims. In fact, he'd find plenty to mock in pagan beliefs - he just hasn't gotten to it yet.
Please note that an American is also calling for restricting parents' rights to raise their children in the faith of their choice - that American being Lawrence Krauss. I am shocked by this. But he is using the excuse of "mental health" to deny this right in parents. I find this quite disturbing.
The problem here is that Krauss and Dawkins both define religion ONLY according to the worst possible examples of religion. For example, they define all of Islam according to the example of ISIS. They define all of Christianity according to the example of Westboro Baptist Church. I am sure they would define all of Asatru according to the example of the Aryan Brotherhood or something like that.
This is absolutely inaccurate, and the rights of religious Americans hang in the balance.
I will go so far to say that there are some pagans I know (mostly in the UU pagan world) who also decry "religion" but the problem here is, they seem to think they'd be the exception to Dawkins' definition of what religion is. They would be completely wrong about that. I have Dawkins' book The God Delusion on my Kindle (app) and on audio book, and in the first 2 or 3 chapters he makes it very clear how HE defines religion. According to HIS definition of the word - and of course, his definition is the only correct one - pagans are religious, so therefore he would believe that any pagan bringing up their kids in pagan ways are guilty of child abuse. He would therefore regard pagans as being every bit a danger to a child's mental health as any Christian or Muslim or Jew. I cannot, cannot emphasize this enough.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
I Was Right...
...to join the AFA.
I had been struggling with where my place was: paganism/Asatru/the AFA, or the Episcopalians (and most specifically, St Richard's).
Given some discussion that has gone down in the Bible study, I think it's the AFA.
I have the impression that with the AFA, I would not be looked down on or belittled for certain views that I have, no matter how politically incorrect they may be according to most other people.
I do not think I would be "punished" for believing that all people - including myself - have inherent worth and dignity that should be respected. All people, including my people.
I'll have to return to that thought later; I'd like to make a comment here.
In recent years, I've discovered the videos and podcasts of a number of scientists, including Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Michio Kaku, Carl Sagan, Bill Nye and many others. These people all tell us that we - all of humanity, and all earthly beings, even inanimate ones - are made of star stuff.
This to me is nothing short of a wonder. I am of the universe. We all are.
But of course - what else would we be of? This universe is our home. We can't be separated from it in any way, no matter how hard we try. And within this view, this understanding of who we really are, I guess I don't really "need" these entities called gods and goddesses. All I need is to know that I too am part of the universe - and all that I am.
It is my hope that there is room for this view within the AFA.
I had been struggling with where my place was: paganism/Asatru/the AFA, or the Episcopalians (and most specifically, St Richard's).
Given some discussion that has gone down in the Bible study, I think it's the AFA.
I have the impression that with the AFA, I would not be looked down on or belittled for certain views that I have, no matter how politically incorrect they may be according to most other people.
I do not think I would be "punished" for believing that all people - including myself - have inherent worth and dignity that should be respected. All people, including my people.
I'll have to return to that thought later; I'd like to make a comment here.
In recent years, I've discovered the videos and podcasts of a number of scientists, including Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Michio Kaku, Carl Sagan, Bill Nye and many others. These people all tell us that we - all of humanity, and all earthly beings, even inanimate ones - are made of star stuff.
This to me is nothing short of a wonder. I am of the universe. We all are.
But of course - what else would we be of? This universe is our home. We can't be separated from it in any way, no matter how hard we try. And within this view, this understanding of who we really are, I guess I don't really "need" these entities called gods and goddesses. All I need is to know that I too am part of the universe - and all that I am.
It is my hope that there is room for this view within the AFA.
Friday, March 20, 2015
Maternal Arms
I found two different coats of arms associated with the name Staten (my mother's maiden name) - and it must be borne in mind that arms are actually not granted to a family or clan, but to an individual instead.
At any rate, these are the arms I found:
At any rate, these are the arms I found:
The top one involves a lobster on a blue field, next to three silver stars. I have to admit I'm not all that crazy about that one.
The second one involves a dancing goat of some kind. One heraldry website I found described the symbolism of the goat as follows: "The goat is a symbol of practical wisdom and an emblem of a man who wins through diplomacy rather than war." OK, I suppose that makes sense.
Another name that is found on Mom's side of the family is Maynard; this is the maiden name of her grandmother. I did find at least one Maynard arms, which looks like this:
Them's some sharp-looking arms, that's for sure. Now, I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect there could be a link between those Maynards and Lt. Robert Maynard, the sailor who brought down Blackbeard. I'd like to find out more and see if there is a family link there. I understand the symbolism of the Red Hand is this: it is indicative of a baronet or knight. That's quite interesting.
I also found this one, with a charming dancing fox on it:
This says it's German; I wonder if the other Maynard arms is English. Wouldn't surprise me.
Another name that turns up on Mom's side of the family is that of the notorious HATFIELD clan. Yes, THOSE HATFIELDS. I found several different arms associated with the Hatfield name.
Some of these are just gorgeous, especially the ones involving the ermine background. I love arms that incorporate the ermine tail pattern. The variation seen in the Hatfield arms indicates how arms are given to an individual, not an entire family or clan. Lord knows there's plenty of Hatfields out there.... ;)
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Stribling Stuff
These are photos from some pages from a book I have on the Stribling family. I was completely foxed as to who they were and what their relation was to me and my family until just a couple of weeks ago. Now that I know Stribling was the maiden name of my great-great grandmother, it all makes sense.
Of course, HER mother's maiden name (my great-great-great grandmother) was Williams. I like that. It is the English form of my husband's name, Wilke. I wonder - are we more closely related than I want to think?? Yikes! LOL!
I must find this book again - it's around the house somewhere - and see if I can find a photo of my great-great grandmother in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)