Henry I "Beauclerc", King of England - Brand New Book, with all the documentation, you'll ever need to verify your lineages from HENRY I , (1070-1135) KING Of ENGLAND, DUKE Of NORMANDY, THE SON Of WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR & MATILDA OF FLANDERS and beyond!!!

Thank you for letting everyone know. I just purchased the book on Amazon.com.

I ask myself, who reported this? And for what?

After all, it's not like I'm spamming, for my own profit. (It's Not My Book)
Nor, am I a robot, gleaning Information or hacking into profiles or sites.
I honestly, just thought, "Hey, Great! A Book with sourced information, which goes all The way back from Henry I through, Charlemagne to Constantine."
And figured, that others, descending from these lineages, might also, like to know about it.
So, what is the problem?
I seriously, hope Geni will revue The "Report" and discard "The (faulty) Report" and reinstate, this discussion, thread.

Hard to tell these days what issue someone had with it Cuz. Some are so pc and supposedly easily offended.

Sorry, Theresa. I should have posted immediately.

I reported the message for spam. It's purely an advertisement. It would have been very different if your message had included your opinion of it. What you found helpful, what you didn't. Without that, it's just an ad.

From the sales pitch, this is likely to be a very poor quality book. I say that without seeing it, but it hypes proof for lines like Constantine that are not actually proved and can't be proved with existing sources. That means it's not just spam, but also a very dangerous kind of spam because it will lead people astray.

Geni will review the report and make a decision. They might decide to restore the original message, but I hope they don't.

The original post had my personal opinion, in the header.
Had a description of the content of the book, from the author himself, in the closer, along with a "user" statement, before this.
I apologize if it seemed like "soley an advertisement", it wasn't.

Possibly, being heavily involved in the commercial music business, has so thoroughly, infected my expressive manner, that I should be writing for a commercial advertising company... But mostly, it was mostly, my own thoughts, words and opinions, stated in the original post. (Which is now, no longer viewable, until further review, from Geni.)

To answer the question about the author.
The actual author, Charles W. Poley, researched the book's content for 25 years. He accredited his wife Lara Poley, as the author, because while he has been diagnosed with stage IV cancer and undergoing treatment, operations and more, she did most of the organization and footwork, pulling together his research, into the book itself, in its final form, under his administration.

Chuck (Charles Poley) is a genealogist for: Genealogy Ancestral Roots and also, personally knows and collaborates with renowned genealogists, like, Richardson.
He has also, been working on a "Lineages of Barons of the Magna Carta" trilogy, the past few years, which has been with an editing and corrections team, for some months, now. The Henry I book, was simply, completed earlier.

I do trust his work and am certain, were there any issues, that he would gladly, discuss and/or alter anything which is proven to be iffy, uncertain or rebuked.

I am also, sorry, if reposting my discussion to Henry I, confused anyone, as well.
I thought, it would be good to post it, to the discussion threads of the MAIN figures of interest... since, not all who view the discussions for Charlemagne will view the discussions for Henry I and vise versa.

I have requested further, more specific information on the source material, personally and will post this, for anyone concerned, once I receive a reply. But, just my opinion... I highly doubt, he has sourced any sort of "family trees", from private users, other than, possibly, those housed in the Hall of London etc. that would be laughable... which, he most definitely, is not.

Best Regards,

Theresa Renée

I do believe, if Justin is presented good solid facts, he, just as any other rational and serious researcher, is able to accept these. Which is why I have requested further details, from the Author.
I appreciate, your interaction, Michael, but it would be even better, with a less personal flavor.

xoxoxoTheresa Renée

Michael, I've had my say. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment further. Geni will make a decision. Anything further is just people doing drama.

Justin wrote: "I reported the message for spam. It's purely an advertisement. It would have been very different if your message had included your opinion of it. What you found helpful, what you didn't. Without that, it's just an ad."

I agree, my first thought when I read the initial post that are now gone, was that Theresa's account had been hijacked, by a spammer...

That's only, because I wrote the post in a way that it sounded like an advert. I've read other posts, that stated only, "new DNA study settles dispute" with a link or "new discoveries, on ancestral lineage of" so and so... with a link.
Had I simply written, New Book on Henry I... and posted a link, likely, it wouldn't have been reported. So, now, I know. Less is more.

If we had have one thread called, "Tips! on good books and magazines in genealogy", no one had reacted.

I'm sorry, that I might be considered to be overly pc but I too thought the post was spam and was going to report it as such.

As Justin says, the matter it is now in the hands of Geni and I will be interested to see how they interpret the rules on commercial promotions as I have noticed other Geni profiles that are being used to promote external services.

In answer to Ulf: Yes, that sounds about right.

In answer to Will: I myself, have seen, numerous posts, even projects on such, which refer to external services.
I will take the liberty and shortly list, DNA testing sites, DNA studies, magazines and other books, which are also, on Amazon for sale or can be downloaded as eBooks or loaned from various libraries, books on records for Genealogy of Free Black and Slaves and Books on Slave- holders and slave traders, books on Mayflower passengers, books on the Knights Templar, books on Royal and Common lineages, books on Jewish Heritage or the Holocaust, books on Coats- of- Arms, books on the German lineages of Elvis Presley, books on Marilyn Monroe, Jimmy Hoffa, Neanderthals and Indios, books on the various eras of other Nations development, books on the migrations of diverse Ethnicities, books on various World leaders, including the lineages of the Presidents of the United States, books on The Founding Fathers and The Signers of the Declaration of Independence, books on various artists of all eras and their works, books on The Cold War, books on Irish, Finnish, Wiking etc. Lineages, books on books on The war of 1812, Revolutionary, Civil War, etc., MyHeritage which is partially external, but also, in corroboration with Geni, various works and site links from and for Genealogical Society Associations such as SOR/DAR, American Heritage, Nat. Geo. Society, even genealogical touristic groups (Magna Carta Celebrations, Edward III official burial and the Global Family Reunion, and and and... have been repeatedly mentioned and literally pushed/promoted, in various discussion threads.

I again, admit purely and soley to the fact that my music business background, has infiltrated my verbal expressive vocabulary, to automatically package my post, like an advert. But they were my own words, except that which was in quotation marks and cited.
And this, I am afraid, was really, the only thing, I did differently, than anyone else, who has posted similar things, here on Geni.

And again, I stress the fact, that I gain nothing, from my post, neither financially nor, otherwise. I simply, wished to share it, with the other Geni users, just as everyone else, shares their own encountered newest and latest "possible" source materials.

And to whomever it may concern, just for the record.

I was not even capable of writing a full blown revue (my thoughts, on the book), yet, because it was just put up for ordering/released, yesterday. I won't likely receive my copy of it, until just after Christmas. But when I do, I'll be certain, to note, some of the other sources, as well as, as Justin suggested, "what I found helpful about the book" and what I found to be not so titilating, etc. p.p. But I most certainly, included my own personal thoughts, as far as humanly possible, without having the book, in my own possession, yet... in my original post. And the Author in question, as well as his work and associations, is also, not unknown to me.

I did get a reply back from the Author and he said, one of the sources, among others, is in fact:
Douglas Richardson's Royal Ancestry, Magna Carta Ancestry, Plantagenet Ancestry, 12 volumes.
Yes, 12 volumes, which one can most definitely think, for themselves, is drastically more expensive than, the condensed sourced version here, in question, for the lineages of Henry I. (The prices on each, can easily be searched for online.)

I hope, this satisfies, as many of the problems surrounding my original post, as possible and this discussion, can be reinstated, by the Geni Admins, as a valid and non- threatening thread.

As previously mentioned, as soon as I do receive my copy of the book, I will add more background, in the various source materials, cited within.

xoxoxoxTheresa Renée

I strongly advise anyone that considering buying this book to take advantage of the 'Look inside' functionality on Amazon (click the link above the picture of the book's front cover) and read the first few pages. Is this really a book you want to buy? There's barely a sentence without a typo, grammatical error, or spelling mistake: even the title on the front cover contains two. This utter lack of attention to detail gives no confidence that the genealogical research has been done any more carefully.

What of the genealogy? Almost the first sentence of the book says "Henry I ... married Nesta verch Rhys". No he didn't: she was the mother of one of his bastards. Perhaps she was his mistress, perhaps it was a fleeting liaison, but certainly there wasn't a marriage.

Amongst Henry I's legitimate children is listed "Richard, Prince of England, d 25 Nov 1120 ". That's the day the White Ship sank. Possibly Henry did have a legitimate son named Richard (though only Gervase of Canterbury mentions him); but if so, he died long before the White Ship. But the Richard who died on the White Ship was described as an illegitimate son, born before Henry's accession. Probably they are conflated here through carelessness; if not, this is a significant result, one that deserves careful discussion, but it is not mentioned in the narrative, nor is a source given for him.

On the subject of sources, it took me a long time to realise the text contained source references as "+17" is a bizarre format for a reference, and the source citations at the end of text are not numbered so you have to count down the list to find the 17th. When you've done that, as likely as not the source will be Richardson's "Royal Ancestry", as two-thirds of the citations are to that work. Richardson's work may not be perfect, and arguably this is Richardson's weakest period; nevertheless, it's a useful reference, and you'd be much better buying it rather than this poor-written derivative work. If Richardson's work is too expensive, a few hours with Wikipedia and a printer would produce something better than this.

Thank you, Richard. I've been waiting to see how this will play out. The promotion for this book claimed it included the line from Charlemagne back to Constantine. There isn't any documentation for such a line, although there is plenty of speculation. So, without going any further, it's clear the book's claims are overstated.

We have the talent here to get it right, don't need a book :) Hope no one buys it and puts the mistakes on Geni.

I fear I was too polite in my comments yesterday. What I had attributed to the author's naïve inexperience is a straightforward, albeit incompetently executed, case of plagiarism. So far as I can determine, Lara W Poley's book is copied verbatim and without acknowledgement from a personal website entitled "Our Royal, Titled, Noble, and Commoner Ancestors & Cousins". In an exchange of emails yesterday with that site's author, I was told this was done without the author's knowledge, and certainly without seeking permission. I have no reason to doubt that.

I cannot imagine this could have happened by accident, and if not by accident, it is a wilful deception through which Ms Poley presumably hopes to profit from the illegal sale of copyright material. DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK.

(And by way of clarification, I'd note some of my earlier criticisms do not apply to the website. Many of the problems in the book stem from the way it's been copied-and-pasted, loosing all formatting in the process. And I'm considerably more tolerant towards inaccuracies on a personal website that's clearly a work in progress, than in a printed book.)

Is Lewis seeking redress for the plagiarism?

One of the things I appreciate about that site is that the sources, when available, are nicely clear.

When I first checked the book out, the look inside function wasn't available. But still it sounded Not Possibly OK.

We will indeed be seeing things from this book showing up on Geni.

Alas.

Hello Discussion Group,

I have thoroughly read your claims, Richard and those of the Fb group, "Royal, Titled, Noble, Commoner ancestors and cousins", and have directly conferred with the author of the Henry I book... personally.

Lewis is obviously utilizing no other source than, Richardson's works, just as Poley has... which would fully account for the word for word similarities, to his group's posts... and this book. And I might add, that at least Poley gives Richardson credit, unlike in Lewis' group. And Poley, also, has the full permission and blessings of Richardson personally, in doing so.
And that many of the claimed spelling "errors" are due to protecting the genuine language of the original documents referenced... as these were spelled exactly so, (when, albeit, misspelled) in these documents. i.e. The Magna Carta and King John "Lackland" Plantagenet's will.
And that I am personally fascinated (like watching a train wreck, sort of fascinated) by persons who wish to act as not only genealogical experts and book critiques with no expertise, but also, as spelling and grammatical experts, who cannot manage to write "realizing" or "losing" correctly, themselves.

I have been 100% assured from the Author(s) themselves, that there is not in any way or form, any sort of plagiarism in context with this book, only reiterated and sourced quotes. And I place my great faith in human kind and human kindness, in your hands now, to refrain from making any further such claims, in any public medium.

Besides, Richard,
I see you have a grand total of (1) profile in your geni tree, since joining in 2014... as well as, having no recent activity besides your wild claims and accusations left here, in this very thread.
I must ask myself, where on Earth did you come from, anyway?

*(Rhetorical question. No, I do not really want to know the answer, but I do think it's quite generous of you, to drop in on us, just to leave your bits of half- knowledgable wisdom, with us and leave, for another year or so... adding nothing, but negativity, to our Geni experience.)

Michael, you said:

> Double standards that's what this world is full of.. Justin and several other users have been nothing but detrimental since I joined 4 years ago and Because they are curators they can get away with having attuides and agendas and listening only when it suits them...

Thanks for the feedback. I'm sorry you don't find my comments helpful.

Theresa, I can understand you might be feeling a little defensive at this point. I'd like to see if I can find a way to help you understand why this book is causing such strong negative reactions.

First, as Richard says there are apparent copyright problems with the material. This becomes painfully obvious when you do a side-by-side comparison of Amazon's Look Inside! with the same information on the website Our Royal, Titled, Noble, and Commoner Ancestors. The website is using a particular software designed for publishing information on the Internet. One of the peculiarities of this software is that it creates footnotes in an idiosyncratic format, such as [S4], where this internal reference creates a hyperlink to a source in its own sources database. The Poley book uses the same exact numbers, which is simply not possible unless it is based on a database where the sources have been entered in exactly the same order.

Not only that, the Poley book makes exactly the same typographical "mistakes" the website does. For example under Matilda of Flanders, source [S840] it says "Unknown author, Lineage and Ancestry of HRH Prince Charles by Gerald Paget, Vol. I, p. 56." Notice that here the author is actually known, but on both the website and the book put the author's name at the end of the title field in the software instead of in the author field. In other places, for example [S4] Douglas Richardson, the author's name is in the author field and the title is in the title field. And this happens for every single source in the preview of the book.

The odds against reproducing the textual variations from the website without doing a copy / paste are astronomical.

Second, even if the book did not have this apparent copyright issue, there is a matter of credibility.

It's probably not obvious to beginners, but when you spend money on a reference book you want to make sure you're getting solid work. You want a compilation by someone who is citing the original articles by the people who did the research or who were outstanding experts in the field. You want citations to Moriarty, Winkhaus, Complete Peerage, and that Ilk. You don't want something citing Doug Richardson for something where he has relied on other, standard material. You don't want Richardson as a source for William the Conqueror. You want Richardson as a source for the original research he's done in other areas.

A book like Poley's is no better (and perhaps no worse) than citing Geni, the LDS database, or Our Royal, Titled, Noble, and Commoner Ancestors, or any of a hundred other 3rd and 4th hand compilations of real primary and secondary sources.

If you watch some of the experienced genealogists on Geni in action, one thing that should stand out for you is that in every case they are trying to get as close to the primary sources as they can. They aren't just copying information out of someone else's compilation of someone else's research on someone's article. At least, they're trying very hard not to do that. And, in the discussions you won't find many instances of someone experienced arguing that people like Weis or Richardson or Paget are the final word on anything.

Third, even if Poley's book did not have the apparent copyright problems, and someone is willing to live with its possible failings as a good reference, there are many other books on the market at a far better price.

For example, you can pick up a 4th edition (2010) of Roderick W. Stuart's Royalty for Commoners for $40 on Amazon, compared to $60 for Poley's book. And, if you're willing to live with a 3rd edition you can get a used copy on Abebooks for $16.

Some people who are new to genealogy might not know the story of this book. It was first published in 1988 by a man who truly had spent a lifetime collecting and organizing everything he could find in quality secondary sources about the ancestry of Edward III and Philippa of Hainault.

But the immediate reaction to the book was howls of derision from every expert in the field. Stuart did a reasonably competent job of compiling a bunch of stuff, but there is so much he got wrong. You couldn't rely on a single thing without checking it against a reliable source. Despite all his hard work, his reputation was ruined. It will never again be possible to cite him and expect to be taken seriously.

I have a copy of that first 1988 edition. I bought it when I was much younger and more optimistic than I am now. Some of my mentors warned me, but I didn't listen.

One of my particular pet peeves is that Stuart often doesn't recognjent names, and because of that he doesn't realize the ancestries he is giving are actually competing reconstructions of the same line. If one authority said this guy's father was Count Rudolf and another authority says it was his wife's father who was Count Rudolf, Stuart often accepted both versions without realizing only one of them could be true.

Nevertheless, one thing I like about Stuart is that he is a convenient guide to the real sources. If I want to know where to look for info about Eberhard VI von Thurgau, I flip open my copy of Stuart and there it is -- I need to look at Kruger and Winkhaus. So, toss Stuart back in the pile and I'm off to look for the better stuff.

The sad thing about Poley's book is that it won't even have this advantage. I won't even have to pick it up to know that I'd get the same material from Richardson or Our Royal, Titled, Noble, and Commoner Ancestors.

Someone stealing another's work and profiting by it is shameful.

If I understand correctly, what happened here is that a widow published work she thought was her late husband's. It appears that it was actually just his convenient reference for information he passed along to his clients, perhaps with some of his own interlined comments.

If that's what happened, it's very sad because she has probably trashed his reputation and legacy as a professional genealogist. (I'll just say a little prayer that none of my heirs are ever under the delusion that my notes are worth publishing.)

I'm feeling very sad for her. How much better it would have been if this message thread has just stayed reported and hidden, without the subsequent argument and discussion.

also to mislead people by saying one's "product" is the result of 25 years of their own research is beyond the pale.

Marlyn Lewis took years to put together this database, and he uses many, many reputable sources, not just Douglas Richardson. Lewis gave credit to those genealogies.

I can't understand how anyone cannot see that this is the theft of intellectual property. Mr. Lewis took the time to compile the database, to find various sources to back up his facts.
This Henry book, which I am embarrassed to admit I bought, is clearly just a cut-and-paste product from Mr. Lewis.

furthermore, Mr. Lewis's database is "free."

Hi Justin,

I sincerely appreciate you beginning with, "I understand you might be feeling a little bit defensive". That was truly, kind and very sensitive of you.
And also, I highly appreciate you mentioning the M.O. of first hand research and documentation, for those of us less familiar.
But please, note... not everyone has the luxury of chasing windmills, all over the Earth, nor access to some of the most guarded documents on said Royal lineages... i.e. The Queen Elizabeth collection which claimed to trace over a million paths, back to Charlemagne, with documentation. Or those of the Vatican archives or the library of congress... where of course, thousands and thousands of pedigrees and Liturature is preserved but also, some fraudulent works, find their haven under these.
Many "researchers" have no other choice, but to rely on the research and affidavits of others, who may have been contemporaries or achialogists who were actually, on location, of new discoveries of proof, thought to be lost to time and circumstance... again some may have found themselves in the very lucky position of favor, allowing them to gain access to some of the holier record halls.
In many (too many) cases, there may never be reliable documentation or sources ever located... The Great Fire of London... Religious wars... maliciously destroying thousands of records etc.
and I will take this opportunity, to openly admit, I may have hyped the content of the book, without having been able to look within its contents, a bit too highly, myself. And for this, I beg pardon.

Also, many thanks and kudos, for listing some of the more technical issues, involved, behind the confusion and accusations.
And if it's true that the footnotes and order of, at least, the three pages in the preview, are in fact copies and pastes of some data base, from some other guy's website and not Richardson or some other 2nd or 3rd source authority, well, that is sort- o'- kind- o' a cyber- bust. As well as, a no go... I am in complete agreement.

But I simply, cannot and do not believe this.

I am however, pretty certain, that they, (Poley and Lewis), simply both have access to yes, the EXACT SAME DATA BASE.
(Likely, that of yet another research site on Royal lineages. Possibly, even that of Richardson himself.)
And this is where they BOTH likely, copied and pasted it from... leaving the entire question of thorough genealogy, to stand alone, un- commented, on both of their parts. But also, placing the plagiarism accusations, into a fully new angle and a null and void area of irrelevancy in this discussion.

I had mentioned that the Book was written by Charles Poley, Jr., but is published in his wife's Name, soley due to the fact that Chuck, is fighting Stage 4 Cancer at the moment and his wife, who is managing all other aspects of their lives, for them, had done the "Lions Portion" of bringing the Book together, under his personal supervision.

Chuck personally told me, the day the book was released, that he had researched for approx. 25 years, on this subject, as well as, on The Magna Carta Topic.

And I really, consider it heartily, "jumping the gun, to blatently discredit an entire book, on a three page preview excerpt.
Assumptions were aired such as, "2/3rds of the sources credited were from Richardson."... etc.
More accurately, would be possibly, to state, "on the first 3 preview pages, 2/3rds of the sources were Richardson." But there are like a thousand pages... (I still haven't received my copy yet, but as soon as I do, as I have also, previously stated, I will note, some of the other souce material).

My heart also, warmed, reading about your Stuart book and your memories of how you were, "younger and more optimistic", back at the time when you purchased it. I thank you also, for the background and personal findings on same. Very good to know and very sweet to read.

And Patricia, I think, it is simply, "too rich" of you, to add that commentary.
Absolutely nothing, written here, has been proven or even fully assessed, either way...yet some are so ready to burn that witch at the stake... whether she floats or not. It's not really a wonder , that our society is in the condition it is and has been progressing to, for the past few centuries. After all, we (the human race) were also, quick to burn, otherwise execute and incarcerate those who claimed the World was not flat, as well... for a scarily long period of time.

Of course, stealing is shameful... of that there is absolutely no grounds for debate.
But to so readily and rapidly assume that that is the case, without being 1000% certain, is just joining the back end of the witch hunt, without even knowing which witch is which.

Chuck Poley isn't dead. I believe the widow under discussion was Stuart's.