“Lest We Forget”
10,623 names…10,623 stories…10,623 memories
This Day in Goodlove History, July 20
Like us on Facebook!
https://www.facebook.com/ThisDayInGoodloveHistory
Jeff Goodlove email address: Jefferygoodlove@aol.com
Surnames associated with the name Goodlove have been spelled the following different ways; Cutliff, Cutloaf, Cutlofe, Cutloff, Cutlove, Cutlow, Godlib, Godlof, Godlop, Godlove, Goodfriend, Goodlove, Gotleb, Gotlib, Gotlibowicz, Gotlibs, Gotlieb, Gotlob, Gotlobe, Gotloeb, Gotthilf, Gottlieb, Gottliebova, Gottlob, Gottlober, Gottlow, Gutfrajnd, Gutleben, Gutlove
The Chronology of the Goodlove, Godlove, Gottlob, Gottlober, Gottlieb (Germany, Russia, Czech etc.), and Allied Families of Battaile, (France), Crawford (Scotland), Harrison (England), Jackson (Ireland), LeClere (France), Lefevre (France), McKinnon (Scotland), Plantagenets (England), Smith (England), Stephenson (England?), Vance (Ireland from Normandy), Washington, Winch (England, traditionally Wales), including correspondence with George Rogers Clark, Thomas Jefferson, and ancestors William Henry Harrison, Andrew Jackson and George Washington.
The Goodlove Family History Website:
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/g/o/o/Jeffery-Goodlove/index.html
The Goodlove/Godlove/Gottlieb families and their connection to the Cohenim/Surname project:
• New Address! http://www.familytreedna.com/public/goodlove/default.aspxy
July 20, 70: During the Siege of Jerusalem, Titus, son of emperor Vespasian, storms the Fortress of Antonia north of the Temple Mount. The Roman army is drawn into street fights with the Zealots.[1]
By Summer Romans had contructed ramps and were able to breach the walls and enter the city by stages. [2]They set fire to the city and razed the walls to the ground. [3] According to first century historian Flavius Josephus, an estimated one million Jews perished in the siege of Jerusalem alone, with many killed elsewhere in the country and tens of thousands sold into slavery. Nearly 1,000 Jewish men, women and children who had survived the fall of Jerusalem occupied and fortified King Herod’s mountaintop palace complex of Masada on the western shore of the Dead Sea.[4]
July 20, 841: King Alpin of Kintrye b. 784 Kintrye, Alba d. July 20, 841 buried at Reilig Odhran Iona married to Princess Unuistic of n'Gabran. [5]
July 20, 1402: During the Ottoman-Timurid Wars, Timur led the forces of the Timurid Empire to victory over the forces of the Ottoman Empire led by Sultan Bayezid I at the Battle of Ankara. This defeat could not have been a source of joy for the Jews living in the Ottoman Empire. Bayezid had proven to be a friend of the Jewish people. “In 1394 Sultan Bayezid invited the French Jews who were molested by King Charles VI, to settle in the Ottoman Empire. They established communities in Edirne and the Balkans. The French Kings had the habit of inviting the Jews to establish commerce and borrowing money from them. However often, when payment was due, they expelled them; only to re-invite them when they needed further financing.” Bayezid died a year after the defeat.[6]
1403: Now let us examine the claim that Gutleben also had the Jewish name Jechiel. Accordingly, Gutleben/Vivelin was certainly not originally called Chajjim at all, for he would hardly go by two Jewish first names! So here we are again dealing with a thesis of Moses Ginsburrger who was led to this assumption at one time through the discovery of a Jewish gravestone dated 1403, the deceased Joseph Gutleben and the one called Gutleben, should be in this case: Jechiel’s son, named for Gutleben’s father Josset (Joseph). Aside from the fact that “Gutleben,” according to Ginsburger’s own assertion, stands afdter all for “Vivelin/Chajjim,” it still needs to be remarked that the gravesite in question must not necessarily have stemmed from Basel’
S Jewish cemetery. But above all, one cannot avoid asking whether foreign Israelites, after the flight of Jews from Basel, were allowed to continue to bury their dead in the necropolis there, or to do so only case of an exception. We will not make Ginsburger’s presumption about the identity of the father of the dead Joseph our own.[7] 20,000 chapter Encyclopedia called the Yongle Dadian or Yung Lo Ta Tien started to be compiled in China, Ghiberti sculpts human body in realistic style for bronze doors of Florence baptistery, heralding the Renaissance, Henry IV defeats rebel lords in England, Death of Bajazer I Emir of the Turks – son Suleiman I rules, Henry IV subdues Northumberland, Lorenzo Ghiberti begind work on porches of Florence baptistery, Battle of Shrewsbury – rebellion by the Percy family – Henry IV defeats and kills Harry Hotspur Percy, 20,000 chapter Encyclopedia called the Yongle Dadian started to be compiled in China, Ghiberti sculpts human body in realistic style for bronze doors of Florence baptistery, heralding the Renaissance, Henry IV defeats rebel lords in England, Percy family rebellion of North Unberland defeated. [8]
July 20, 1554: From Geneva to Frankfurt and Scotland, 1554–1556
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/KnoxRefWall.JPG/170px-KnoxRefWall.JPG
http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.22wmf8/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png
Statue of John Knox at the Reformation Wall monument in Geneva
Knox disembarked in Dieppe, France, and continued to Geneva, where John Calvin had established his authority. When Knox arrived Calvin was in a difficult position. He had recently authorised the execution of the scholar Michael Servetus for heresy. Knox asked Calvin four difficult political questions: whether a minor could rule by divine right, whether a female could rule and transfer sovereignty to her husband, whether people should obey ungodly or idolatrous rulers, and what party godly persons should follow if they resisted an idolatrous ruler.[41] Calvin gave cautious replies and referred him to the Swiss reformer Heinrich Bullinger in Zürich. Bullinger's responses were equally cautious; but Knox had already made up his mind. On July 20, 1554, he published a pamphlet attacking Mary Tudor and the bishops who had brought her to the throne.[42] He also attacked the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, calling him "no less enemy to Christ than was Nero".[43][9]
July 20, 1565:
Henry Stewart (Lord Darnley)
Henry
b. Dececmber 7, 1545, Temple Newsam, Yorkshire, England
d. February 10, 1567, Edinburgh, Scotland [1]
Title:
Dei gratia rex et regina Scotorum = By the grace of God, King and Queen of the Scots (joint style for Henricus et Maria = Henry and Mary)
Term:
July 19, 1565 - February 10, 1567
Chronology:
July 28, 1565, intended marriage proclaimed by a warrant under royal signature and Signet Manual ordering that after the marriage Henry Stewart should be styled King [2]
July 29, 1565, accorded royal style upon marriage to Queen Mary I of Scotland
February 10, 1567, died (assassination?)
Names/titles:
Private name: Henry Stewart of Darnley; styled (by courtesy): Lord Darnley [from December 7, 1545]; Earl of Ross and Lord of Ardmannoch [ May 15, 1565 - February 10, 1567]; Duke of Albany [ July 20, 1565 - February 10, 1567] [10]
July 20, 1567: Imprisonment in Scotland and abdication
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Mary_Stuart_James.jpg/220px-Mary_Stuart_James.jpg
http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.22wmf1/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png
Mary depicted with her son, James VI and I; in reality, Mary saw her son for the last time when he was ten months old.
Between April 21 and 23, 1567, Mary visited her son at Stirling for the last time. On her way back to Edinburgh on April 24, Mary was abducted, willingly or not, by Lord Bothwell and his men and taken to Dunbar Castle, where he may have raped her.[128] On May 6, Mary and Bothwell returned to Edinburgh and on May 15, at either Holyrood Palace or Holyrood Abbey, they were married according to Protestant rites.[129] Bothwell and his first wife, Jean Gordon, who was the sister of Lord Huntly, had divorced twelve days previously.[130]
Originally Mary believed that many nobles supported her marriage, but things soon turned sour between the newly elevated Bothwell (created Duke of Orkney and consort of the Queen) and his old peers, and the marriage was deeply unpopular. Catholics considered the marriage unlawful, since they did not recognise Bothwell's divorce or the validity of the Protestant service. Both Protestants and Catholics were shocked that Mary should marry the man accused of murdering her husband.[131] The marriage was tempestuous, and Mary became despondent.[132] Twenty-six Scottish peers, known as the confederate lords, turned against Mary and Bothwell, raising an army against them. Mary and Bothwell confronted the lords at Carberry Hill on June 15, but there was no battle as Mary's forces dwindled away through desertion during negotiations.[133] Bothwell was given safe passage from the field, and the lords took Mary to Edinburgh, where crowds of spectators denounced her as an adulteress and murderer.[134] The following night, she was imprisoned in Loch Leven Castle, on an island in the middle of Loch Leven.[135] Between July 20 and July 23, Mary miscarried twins.[136] On July 24, she was forced to abdicate in favour of her one-year-old son James.[137] Moray was made regent,[138] while Bothwell was driven into exile. He was imprisoned in Denmark, became insane and died in 1578.[139][11]
July 20, 1736: From page 98 of "The Armistead Family 1635-1910," (1910), by Virginia Armistead Garber: "Augustine Smith (son of Major Lawrence Smith, great-uncle of Thomas Smith, of York,) was one of the Knights of the Golden Horseshoe. He married Susanna Darnell; had a son Thomas, a son John, and daughter Mary, who married Robert Slaughter. His will proved in Orange County; lived in St. Mary's Parish, Essex County." Augustine was one of the original Trustees for the town of Fredericksburg in 1727. From page 97 of "The Armistead Family 1635-1910," in 1722 he qualified as one of the first justices for Spotsylvania Co., and his will was proved in Orange Co., VA., July 20, 1736, and names issue, Thomas, of Prince Wm. Co., and Mary, wife of Robert Slaughter.
A. Children of Augustine Smith and Susanna Walters:
+ . i. Thomas Smith (b. in Orange Co. VA)
. ii. Augustine Smith, Jr.
. iii. John Smith
. iv. Mary Smith (b. 1713)[12]
July 20, 1736: Capt. Augustine Smith8 [Lawrence Smith7, Christopher Smith6, Thomas Smythe5, Thomas Smythe4, John Smythe3, Richard2, William1] (b. June 16, 1666 / d. abt. 1736 in Orange Co. VA) married a lady named Mary with no children recorded. He remarried to Susanna Walters (d. abt. 1725).
More about Augustine Smith
He was named for his great-uncle, Augustine Warner.
According to the Article entitled "Thomas Smith of Fairfax County, Virginia," by Henry G. Taliaferro, in Volume 40, Number 1 (January-March, 1996) of The Virginia Genealogist: This Augustine Smith is sometimes confused with his distant kinsman, Augustine Smith of "Purton," Gloucester Co, who married Sarah Carver, February 9, 1711. The Augustine of "Purton" was the son of John and Mary (Warner) Smith, grandson of Augustine, Jr and Mildred (Reade) Warner, and great-grandson of Augustine, Sr. and Mary (Townley) Warner.
Augustine Smith was the son of Lawrence Smith per page 54 of "Colonial Caroline: A History of Caroline County, Virginia, " (1954) by T. E Campbell. Augustine commanded the first garrison at Fredericksburg, and had been public surveyor for St Mary's Parish, whose people did not like him. However, the Williamsburg authorities made him surveyor of both Spotsylvania and Essex Counties when the upper end of St Mary's Parish was split. The feud grew greater through the years as planters tried many tactics to get rid of him. A new county (Caroline) seemed a plausible way.
Spotsylvania Co., VA. DB A (1722-1729) dated February 4, 1728, from John Waller and John Taliaferro as Trustees of the town of Fredericksburg in Spots Co. to Augustine Smith of Caroline Co., VA., conveyed lots 30 an 32 in said town. Augustine was the first to purchase a lot, per "History of Fredericksburg Virginia," (1937), by Alvin T. Embry. Spots Co DB B (1729-1734) dated November 2, 1731. Augustine Smith of Spts. Co., Gent. to his eldest son, Thomas Smith, of the same County, Gent. 250 ster. and for sd. Thos. advancement in life, 400 a. in Spts. whereon sd. Thos. now dwells and for some time past has dwelt, etc. M. Battaley, J. Mercer. November 2, 1731.
[Note: Spots. Co DB E (1751-1761) dated June 17, 1752 a Deed of Gift from Lawrence Washington, to his brother George of King Geo. Co., Gent., conveyed his interest acquired as heir of the late Augustine Washington, deceased, in Lots 33, 34 and 40 in the town of Fredericksburg]. For info on Fredericksburg see http://www.ego.net/us/va/fb/history/index.htm
From page 98 of Genealogical and Historical Notes on Culpeper County, Virginia, Embracing a Revised and Enlarged Edition of Dr. Philip Slaughter's History of St. Mark's Parish, compiled by Raleigh Travers Green (1958), Baltimore Southern Book Company: "St. Mark's, p. 85--Slaughter Family--The first Robert Slaughter of Culpeper m. Mary Smith, daughter of Augustine Smith, of Culpeper, an early land surveyor, who lived on the Rappahannock river. His will is on record in the first Vol. of Will records of Orange county. Augustine Smith was of the Horseshoe Expedition of Gov. Spotswood (see http://cal.jmu.edu/sherwork/Writings/History/1716.htm), as was also another surveyor, Col. James Taylor. Augustine Smith was the son of Col. Lawrence Smith, of Gloucester county, and York Town. Col. Smith for years was commandant of the fort at Falmouth, VA. The House of Burgesses also gave him civil jurisdiction over a section around the fort, an unusual mark of confidence, and donated to him a tract of land on the Rappahannock, three and a half miles wide by five miles long. He was once defeated in battle by Bacon, his troops deserting him. Altogether he was one of the most distinguished Virginians of his day. He (Col Lawrence) laid out York Town."
From page 98 of "The Armistead Family 1635-1910," (1910), by Virginia Armistead Garber: "Augustine Smith (son of Major Lawrence Smith, great-uncle of Thomas Smith, of York,) was one of the Knights of the Golden Horseshoe. He married Susanna Darnell; had a son Thomas, a son John, and daughter Mary, who married Robert Slaughter. His will proved in Orange County; lived in St. Mary's Parish, Essex County." Augustine was one of the original Trustees for the town of Fredericksburg in 1727. From page 97 of "The Armistead Family 1635-1910," in 1722 he qualified as one of the first justices for Spotsylvania Co., and his will was proved in Orange Co., VA., July 20, 1736, and names issue, Thomas, of Prince Wm. Co., and Mary, wife of Robert Slaughter.
+
A. Children of Augustine Smith and Susanna Walters:
+ . i. Thomas Smith (b. in Orange Co. VA)
. ii. Augustine Smith, Jr.
. iii. John Smith
+ . iv. Mary Smith (b. 1713)[13]
Augustine Smith is the 8th great granduncle of the compiler.
Saturday July 20, 1754:
Lt. Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia grants Robert Stobo a commission as Major in the Virginia Regiment. Stobo had fought with Washington at Fort Necessity. He and Captain Van Braam had been given to the French as hostages in order to secure the return of men Washington had captured in a skirmish on May 28. Thus at this time Stobo and Van Braam were prisoners at Fort Duquesne. [14]
July 20, 1757
To Ensign Crawford
By George Washington
Esquire, Colonel of the Virginia Regiment
You are ordered forthwith to go in pursuit of Wm. Smith a Defector from the afore said regiment and to use your best endeavors to apprehend and bring him to justice at this place.
If he should resist, and stand upon his defense, contrary to the laws of the country, you are in that case, to fire upon him as an Enemy.
Given this 20th July, 1757
GW
July 20. 1775: Hoping to keep the New England colonies dependent on the British, King George III [15]formally endorses the New England Restraining Act on this day in 1775. The New England Restraining Act required New England colonies to trade exclusively with Great Britain as of July 1. An additional rule would come into effect on July 20, banning colonists from fishing in the North Atlantic. .[16]
King George III is the 3rd great grandfather of the husband of the 9th cousin 2x removed of Jeffery Lee Goodlove.
Thursday, July 20, 1775. Very ill of the Gravel, felt some symptoms of it for two days, but now am in violent pain.[17]
July 20,1775: Hugh Stephenson makes his will.
William Crawford, John Stephenson and William McCormick appointed justices of the peace. [18]
July 20, 1775: Among the first cases of the courtof Common Pleas, County of Franklin, State of Oho, at Columbus, are leagal records, which have drenched the honorble lineage and name of this family through the mud of disgrace in a lawsuit, ' Stephenson vs Sullivan'. The oppenent tryng to prove, that since the youngest child of Hugh and Ann (Whaley Stephenson was dcceased, the rest of their children were illegitimate and disqualified to receive the inheritance of the 6666 /3 acres, ling and being in the County of Franklin, State of Ohio; which was due them, through the sevices of their father, Col. Hugh Stephenson, in the revolutionary War. The state of Virginia granted the allotment according to his rank, located in the Virinia Military tract, which was reserved to VIRGINIA< TO ENBLE THAT STATE TO PAY THEIR SOLDIRS < IN THE STATE OF OHIO> UNQUESTIONED aRE THE RCORDS OF Col. Hugh Stephenson, as he had earned every acre of the land allotted to him. He was a commanding officer, a captain with a company of men, who marched from Shepherdstown on the Shenandoah River (now in West Virginia), to relieve the siege at Boston, 1775. Marching about 600 miles with plenty of action. Capt. Hugh Stephenson received wounds, which were the cause of his death, at which time he ranked as a colonel. His will was probated in December of 1776, at Martinsburg, W. Virginia. His half-brother, Valentne Crawford, was one of he executors. Capt. William Crawford (the oter half-brother0 and John Stephenson (his fullbrother), were also ascrbed as executors. His will was made and dated, July 20, 1775.
July 20, 1776: Treaty of Watertown
The Treaty of Watertown, the first foreign treaty concluded by the United States of America after the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, was signed on July 19, 1776, in the Edmund Fowle House in the town of Watertown, Massachusetts Bay. The treaty established a military alliance between the United States and the St. John's and Mi'kmaq First Nations in Nova Scotia against Great Britain during the American Revolutionary War.
Terms
The treaty was signed by the "Governors" (Council) of the State of Massachusetts Bay, "in behalf of said State, and the other united States of America," just one day after the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed from the balcony of the Old State House in nearby Boston. After the Declaration had been translated, the First Nations delegates said, "We like it well."[1] The preamble of the treaty quotes verbatim from the conclusion of the Declaration of Independence, asserting for the thirteen colonies "that as Free and Independent States they have full power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts & Things which Independent States may of Right do."
Under the terms of the treaty, the Mi'kmaq and St. John's Tribes (Maliseet and Passamaquoddy) committed to "supply and furnish 600 strong men...or as many as may be" for service in the Continental Army. Three of the six Mi'kmaq delegates who signed the treaty "manfully and generously" volunteered to enlist immediately. The treaty also notes that their pay would commence upon their arrival at Washington's camp in New York. Tribal forces formed an "American Battalion" in the Battle of Fort Cumberland (November 22-December 28, 1776). They also protected the Maine border and launched other attacks against British installations.[2] Since 1995, the town of Watertown, Massachusetts has held an annual Treaty Day celebration.
Mi'kmaw historian Daniel Paul notes many individual Mi'kmaq did indeed volunteer and serve with the Continental army as per the terms of the Treaty. However the Signators who signed on were representing their Districts only; its part of Mi'kmaq Treaty protocol that each District was Sovereign and could sign Nation to Nation agreements; then they would return home to present the agreements to the Mi'kmaq Grand Council, the Council of Women and finally to all citizens, which if consensus occurred, the newly signed Treaty would be ratified District by District. The Watertown Treaty was never fully ratified by all Mi'kmaq First Nation Districts until modern times. What circumvented this process of coming to consensus and ratifying the Watertown Treaty as a whole in 1776 is unknown. (It is also noteworthy that one Mi'kmaq District—in New Brunswick—was pressured by the British into signing a treaty of alliance with them on 22 September 1779.[3])
The Treaty of Watertown is still honoured today : all Mi'kmaq citizens are allowed to join the US Armed Forces, regardless of the Nation of their birth. These warriors who have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan, and many other places around the world are celebrated.[19]
July 20, 1776: As the Revolutionary Army was about to lose the city of New York to British forces, Adam Stephen (One of Washington's captains in 1754) wrote to Washington recalling their experience at Fort Necessity. Washington replied as follows:
"I did not let the anniversary of the 3rd... pass off without a grateful remembrance of the escape we had...The same providence that protected us...will, I hope, continue his mercies, and make us happy instruments in restoring peace and liberty."[20]
July 20 — when the anchors were raised and the fleet sailed to Sandy Hook, where it anchored again, so that everything which was a part of the fleet could be brought together.[21]
July 20th, 1777
Since the wind was constantly easterly, the fleet remained at anchor between Long Island and Staten Island in the vicinity of Denys’s Ferry up to the 19th. But on the morning of the 20th, about nine o’clock, a light wind arose, whereupon the fleet weighed anchor and put to sea on the same day. The fleet consisted of some two hundred sail and sailed in the following formation:
The frigate, Liverpool, 32 guns.
The Eagle, 64 guns, on board which were Admiral Howe and the Commanding General Howe.
Raisonnable, 64 guns 1st Division, Captain Parrey; the transport ships of Augusta, the English Guards, the light infantry, Queen’s 64 guns Rangers, and Ferguson, on which ships were red and white pennants for signals.
2d Division, Captain Dickson; the transport ships of the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th English brigades, which had red pennants for signals.
3d Division, Captain Harris; the ships of the 5th
English Brigade and the supply ships for the navy.
4th Division, Captain Sutherland; the transport ships of the English light dragoons, which had red and blue pennants.
Isis, 5th Division, Captain ; the transport ships of Somerset, 50 guns the English artillery, engineers, Hessian grenadiers 64 guns and jagers, which had blue pennants.
6th Division, Captain Solmann; the two Hessian infantry brigades with General Stirn, and the supply ships of the army, which had blue and white pennants.
The Nonsuch, 64 guns; a fire ship called the Vulcan; the Vigilant, with forty 32-pounders. This last ship, which had been built with a flat bottom at New York, was to be used against Philadelphia.
Swift sloop, Four row galleys Dispatch,16 guns [22] 16 guns
July 20, 1791
Isaac Shelby, Esquire, Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, to all to whom these presents shall come, Greetings: Know ye, that by virtue and in consideration of Land Office Military Warrant No. 906, there is granted by the Commonwealth unto Vallentine Crawford heirs, a certain tract or parcel of land containing one thousand acres by survey bearing the 20th day of July 1791, (July 20) lying and being in the County of Bourbon adjoining James Craig’s Survey on Indian Creek on the east and recorded as followeth to wit: Begining at a buckeye hickory and elm corner to said Craig’s land thence south seventy degrees east two hundred and eighty three poles to a blue ash hackberry and sugar tree on the north side of a ridge thence north twenty degrees east 565 1/2 poles, to a white oak and two sugartree saplings thence north seventy degrees west,two hundred and eighty poles to two white oaks and blue ash trees, corner to Craig’s Survey, thence south 20 degrees west 565 1/2 poles to the begining with its appurtenances to have and to hold the said tract or parcel of land with its appurtenances to the said Vallentine Crawford heirs and their heirs forever, in witness whereof the said Isaac Shelby, Esquire, Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky hath hereunto set his hand and caused the feat of the Commonwealth to be affixed at Lexington on the 18th day of February in the year of our Lord 1793 and of the Commonwealth the first.
Isaac Shelby
L. S. By the Governor, James Brown
On the other side of the Ledger— Examined and delivered to Benjamin Harrison, November 17, 1793.[23]
July 20, 1791
Valentine Crawford: Vol. 1, No 56. 1000 A. Military and Bournon, Indian Cr., July 20, 1791. Bk. 2a, p. 36, same and Heirs, February 18, 1793, Bk. 1, p. 107.[24]
Page 162 lists grants for Hugh Stephenson in Bourbon Co and For John Stephenson in Shelby Co.
July 20, 1808: Napoleon decreed that all Jews of the French Empire must adopt family names.[25]
July 20, 1827: Julia Amelia Connell, b Nov 12, 1828, Wellsburg, VA (now WV) d August 3, 1909 Cincinnati, Ohio William Quincy Adams, b July 20, 1827, Wellsburg VA (now WV) d November 12, 1892, Portsmouth, Ohio. [26]\
Sabine Gottlieb, born Schild July 20, 1859 in Atlanta. Wurzburg (last known residence). Resided Karbach. Deportation:Nurnberg-Wurzburg-Regensburg, September 23,1942, Theresienstadt. Date of death: December 5,1942, Theresienstadt.[27]
Gottlieb Sabine: Death certificate, Ghetto Terezín
PreviewLocation of original
National archives Prague > Židovské matriky > Ohledací listy - ghetto Terezín > Band 56 National archives Prague> Jewish registers> Medical Examiner's leaves - ghetto Terezin> Band 56
Related Shoah victims Related Shoah Victims
Sabine Gottlieb Sabine Gottlieb
Born 20. Born on the 20th 07.07th 18591,859
Murdered 1942 Terezín Murdered 1942 Terezín [28]
July 20, 1033: Lucinda Nix (b. October 3, 1883 / d. July 20, 1933).[29]
July 20, 1942: Frieda Gottlieb, born Eisenstein, June 27, 1874 in Wangerin, Pommern. Prenzlauer Berg, Lothriger Str. 16; 25. Alterstransport. Resided Berlin. Deportation: from Berlin, July 20, 1942, Theresienstadt. Date of death: October 12, 1942, Theresienstadt. [30]
July 20, 1943: Finally, on Bastille Day, 1943, Enterprise sailed for home, slipping into a berth in Bremerton, Washington, as dusk settled on July 20. In moments that each of the hundreds of men had anticipated for months, three large groups of men and officers were given 30 days leave, departing the ship about a month apart. Meanwhile the engineers, welders, steamfitters, metalworkers and machinists of Bremerton Navy Yard swarmed over the ship, properly repairing her many wounds, and refitting her to reflect the new realities of war. [31]
Howard Snell would transfer to the Morrison in December 1943.
July 20, 1944:
Adolph Hitler survives an assassination attempt when a bomb explodes at his headquarters in East Prussia.[32] A bomb killed four, but Hitler lived.[1][33] Jodl is injured. [2][34] 1944: The most famous plot to kill Hitler failed. This event has been romanticized by various revisionists. The plotters realized that they could not win the war. They thought that with Hitler gone, they could at least negotiate a peace treaty with the West. The plotters were not only incompetent, they were delusional as well. [For more about people who really worked to opposed Hitler see the recently publish “Red Orchestra.”][3][35]
Wed. July 20, 1864:
Nothing of importance transpired in camp
Some talk of moving[36]
July 20, 1864: Battle of Peach Tree Creek, GA.[37]
July 20-August 2, 1865: Moved to Davenport, Iowa,. [38]
Fall 1865
In the fall of 1865 Dr.William McKinnon Goodlove entered the University of Ann Arbor, Michigan, took a regular course of education at that institution, and in 1868 entered the Medical College of Ohio, at Cincinnati, and took a progressive course, granduating 1n1868, and commencing the practice of medicine in the town of Ontra, Shelby Co., Ohio.[39] His father died when he was ten, he entered the Civil war at 15, remaining until the very end in one of the most heavily embattled regiments of Union Army. One of most remarkable untold stories of the Goodlove family.
1865
General Benjamin Lefever was nominated for secretary of state by the Democratic party in 1865.[40]
July 20, 1866: Lazarus Gottlieb, born July 20,1866 in Lemberg, Galizien. Charlottenburg, Bleibtreustr. 49; 67. Alterstransport. Resided Berlin. Deportation: from Berlin September 25,1942, Theresienstadt. Date of death: October 29,1942 am, Thereseinstadt. [41]
July 20, 1939: British policy on Palestine--particularly the latest decision to cut off legal immigration for six months, beginning Oct. 1--came under heavy fire in the House of Commons tonight. The opposition Laborites contended that the decision to suspend immigration was proof of failure of the government's new policy.[42]
July 20, 1941: ghetto is established in Minsk.[43]
July 20, 1942
Two more groups, of 1,151 and 1,114 internees, leave the Velodrome for the Pithiviers and Beaun-la-Rolande camps, where there have been no preparations for their arrival even though thousands of new arrivals have been expected since early in the month. Another two groups of detainees, one numbering 1,143 and the other 1,149, including 542 mothers and 521 children, follow the next day. The last convoy of Vel d’Hiv internees, sent to Pithiviers on July 22, carries 877 persons, 428 of them children. Fifty or so sick prisoners are sent to Drancy.
When recounts are taken at Pithiviers and Beaune-la-Rolande a few days later, they indicated that the numbers logged into the two camps are several hundred lower than the numbers counted after the raids. This may be explained by the transfer of sick prisoners and some teenagers to Drancy, by escapes, and by the freeing of a sertain number of prisoners for various reasons.[44]
July 20, 1942: An armed Jewish uprising takes place in Nesvizh.[45]
July 20, 1942 The Jews of Kleck tried to revolt as the Germans circled their town. 400 flee into forests. The 1,000 remaining Jews were shot dead. Two from the former group, Moshe Fish and Leva Gilchik (from nearby Kopyl), will form a partisan group.[46]
July 20, 1942: The Jews from Kowale Panskie, Poland are deported, to the Chelmno death camp.[47]
July 20, 1942: The first detachment of the U.S. Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAC’s) begins basic training at Fort Des Moines, Iowa. [1]Winifred (Goodlove) Gardner was among them.[48]
July 20, 1942: Frieda Gottlieb, born Eisenstein, June 27, 1874 in Wangerin, Pommern. Prenzlauer Berg, Lothriger Str. 16; 25. Alterstransport. Resided Berlin. Deportation: from Berlin, July 20, 1942, Theresienstadt. Date of death: October 12, 1942, Theresienstadt. [49]
July 20, 1969
Astronaut Neil Armstrong becomes the first human to walk on the moon.[50]
1970: U.S. Population at 205 million.[51]
1970s
The Gospel of Judas, part of codex discovered in the 1970s near Al Minya, Egypt, was sold to an antiquitites dealer and remained beyond the reach of scholars for more than a quarter of a century. During that time, it was allowed to deteriourate badly before it was handed over to the Maecenas Foundation in Basel, Switzerland, for restoration. Like many manuscripts that have recently resurfaced such as those at Nag Hammadi, it is a third or fourth century Coptic translation of an earlier Greek Text. Its particular importance to the world of biblical scholarship is ints depiction of Judas, Jesus’s famous betrayer, in which is markedly different, and more openly sympathetic, than the one found in the canonical gospels. In this gospel, Judas is Jesus’s most beloved disciple and the one he specifically chose to hand him over to his executioners. [52]
July 20, 1997: Burnett “Red” Hogeland (b. April 19, 1920 in AL / d. July 20, 1997).[53]
July 2000: Erik Hakimian. "Jewish Genes." Megillah (July 2000). Excerpts:
"In a second study, more DNA samples were gathered and the selection of Y chromosome markers was expanded. It was discovered that a particular array of six chromosomal markers were in 92 percent Cohens tested. This collection of markers came to be known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) and is the standard genetic signature of the Jewish priestly family... This second study solidified the theory of the common ancestry of Cohens."
July 20, 2002: Rashmee Z. Ahmed. "India's children of Israel find their roots." The Times of India (July 20, 2002). Excerpts:
"More than 2,000 years after they first claimed to have set foot in India, the mystery of the world's most obscure Jewish community - the Marathi-speaking Bene Israel - may finally have been solved with genetic carbon-dating revealing they carry the unusual Moses gene that would make them, literally, the original children of Israel. Four years of DNA tests on the 4,000-strong Bene Israel, now mainly based in Mumbai, Pune, Thane and Ahmedabad, indicates they are probable descendants of a small group of hereditary Israelite priests or Cohanim, according to new results exclusively made available to the Sunday Times of India.... [Tudor] Parfitt, who initiated and led the research, says this is the first concrete proof that 'exiles from Palestine made it as far as India and managed to maintain Judaism in the sea of Hinduism and Islam'... Aharon Daniel expressed doubt about the new findings. 'Many scientists have claimed to have found Israeli or Cohenim genes in tribes in black Africa and other communities around the world and many here were sceptical about this,' he told STOI.... By studying certain genetic markers on the DNA chain, found only in male descendants of Aaron, Moses' elder brother, who founded the line of Jewish priests, the Bene Israel could well claim to be the purest of the pure."
1401 and 1402 The three Spirit Pond rume stones date to this period. They include the Enscryption Stone, the Map Stone and the Norway Stone. The Enscryption Stone appears to be a ships log and has been difficult to decipher. They contain the hooked X. In runes carved on the rock is enscribed “Vinland, takes two days and is pointing toward the Cape Cod, Narragansit Bay area where another stone is found with a hooked X. The Narragansit Stone is thought to describe the surrounding landscape. The Sinclair’s and Templars are thought to have created all these rock enscription.[54]
The Narragansett Rune Stone
The Narragansett Rune Stone
Medieval Inscription ... in Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay. This Runic inscription is only visible for twenty minutes a day at low tide[55]
David Brody
Author David Brody pointing out features of the Westford Knight carving in Westford, Massachusetts. July 2008. [56]
Medieval Runic Character ... on inscriptions found in Maine, Minnesota and Rhode Island. But this rare rune was only recently found in Europe. This conclusively disproves any hoax theory while also linking these three artifacts together. //[57]
July 20, 2010
On July 20, 2010 seven of the 10 surviving grand-children of Willis and Myrtle (Andrews) Goodlove met for lunch in Marion, IA. In addition to spouses, there was one 1 gr-grandchild attending. This was a 'spur of the moment' gathering, but several commented on the last Goodlove reunion and inquired if any plans have been started for the next one.[58]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/
[2] The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity, The Jesus Dynasty, by James D. Tabor. Page 294-295.
[3] The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity, The Jesus Dynasty, by James D. Tabor. Page 294-295.
[4] Fascinating Facts about the Holy Land by Clarence H. Wagner, Jr.
[5] http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f186/royalty-of-scotland-and-ireland-4932-2.html
[6] This Day in Jewish History
[7] The Gutleben Family of Physicians in Medieval Times, by Gerd Mentgen, page 5.
[8] mike@abcomputers.com
[9] Wikipedia
[10] http://www.archontology.org/nations/uk/scotland/stuart1/darnley.php
[11] Wikipedia
[12] Proposed Descendants of William Smythe.
[13] http://freepages.family.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ja7smith/Genealogy_of_William_Smyth.html Proposed Descendants of William Smyth (b. 1460)
[14] http://www.nps.gov/archive/fone/1754.htm
[15] King George III
AKA George William Frederick Hanover
Born: June 4,-1738
Birthplace: London, England
Died: January 29, 1820
Location of death: Windsor Castle, Berkshire, England
Cause of death: unspecified
Remains: Buried, Windsor Castle, Berkshire, England
Gender: Male
Religion: Anglican/Episcopalian
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Royalty
Nationality: England
Executive summary: King of England, 1760-1820
George III, King of Great Britain and Ireland, son of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and grandson of King George II, whom he succeeded in 1760, was born on June 4, 1738. After his father's death in 1751 he had been educated in seclusion from the fashionable world under the care of his mother and of her favorite counsellor the Earl of Bute. He had been taught to revere the maxims of Bolingbroke's "Patriot King", and to believe that it was his appointed task in life to break the power of the Whig houses resting upon extensive property and the influence of patronage and corruption. That power had already been gravely shaken. The Whigs from their incompetency were obliged when the Seven Years' War broke out to leave its management in the hands of William Pitt. The nation learned to applaud the great war minister who succeeded where others had failed, and whose immaculate purity put to shame the ruck of barterers of votes for places and pensions.
In some sort the work of the new king was the continuation of the work of Pitt. But his methods were very different. He did not appeal to any widely spread feeling or prejudice; nor did he disdain the use of the arts which had maintained his opponents in power. The patronage of the crown was to be really as well as nominally his own; and he calculated, not without reason, that men would feel more flattered in accepting a place from a king than from a minister. The new Toryism of which he was the founder was no recurrence to the Toryism of the days of King Charles II or even of Queen Anne. The question of the amount of toleration to be accorded to Dissenters had been entirely laid aside. The point at issue was whether the crown should be replaced in the position which King George I might have occupied at the beginning of his reign, selecting the ministers and influencing the deliberations of the cabinet. For this struggle George III possessed no inconsiderable advantages. With an inflexible tenacity of purpose, he was always ready to give way when resistance was really hopeless. As the first English-born sovereign of his house, speaking from his birth the language of his subjects, he found a way to the hearts of many who never regarded his predecessors as other than foreign intruders. The contrast, too, between the pure domestic life which he led with his wife Charlotte, whom he married in 1761, and the habits of three generations of his house, told in his favor with the vast majority of his subjects. Even his marriage had been a sacrifice to duty. Soon after his accession he had fallen in love with Lady Sarah Lennox, and had been observed to ride morning by morning along the Kensington Road, from which the object of his affections was to be seen from the lawn of Holland House making hay, or engaged in some other ostensible employment. Before the year was over Lady Sarah appeared as one of the queen's bridesmaids, and she was herself married to Sir Charles Bunbury in 1762.
At first everything seemed easy to him. Pitt had come to be regarded by his own colleagues as a minister who would pursue war at any price, and in getting rid of Pitt in 1761 and in carrying on the negotiations which led to the peace of Paris in 1762, the king was able to gather around him many persons who would not be willing to acquiesce in any permanent change in the system of government. With the signature of the peace his real difficulties began. The Whig houses, indeed, were divided amongst themselves by personal rivalries. But they were none of them inclined to let power and the advantages of power slip from their hands without a struggle. For some years a contest of influence was carried on without dignity and without any worthy aim. The king was not strong enough to impose upon parliament a ministry of his own choice. But he gathered around himself a body of dependants known as the king's friends, who were secure of his favor, and who voted one way or the other according to his wishes. Under these circumstances no ministry could possibly be stable; and yet every ministry was strong enough to impose some conditions on the king. Lord Bute, the king's first choice, resigned from a sense of his own incompetency in 1763. George Grenville was in office until 1765; the Marquis of Rockingham until 1766; Pitt, becoming Earl of Chatham, until illness compelled him to retire from the conduct of affairs in 1767, when he was succeeded by the Duke of Grafton. But a struggle of interests could gain no real strength for any government, and the only chance the king had of effecting a permanent change in the balance of power lay in the possibility of his associating himself with some phase of strong national feeling, as Pitt had associated himself with the war feeling caused by the dissatisfaction spread by the weakness and ineptitude of his predecessors.
Such a chance was offered by the question of the right to tax America. The notion that England was justified in throwing on America part of the expenses caused in the late war was popular in the country, and no one adopted it more pertinaciously then George III. At the bottom the position which he assumed was as contrary to the principles of parliamentary government as the encroachments of Charles I had been. But it was veiled in the eyes of Englishmen by the prominence given to the power of the British parliament rather than to the power of the British king. In fact the theory of parliamentary \’government, like most theories after their truth has long been universally acknowledged, had become a superstition. Parliaments were held to be properly vested with authority, not because they adequately represented the national will, but simply because they were parliaments. There were thousands of people in England to whom it never occurred that there was any good reason why a British parliament should be allowed to levy a duty on tea in the London docks and should not be allowed to levy a duty on tea at the wharves of Boston. Undoubtedly George III derived great strength from his honest participation in this mistake. Contending under parliamentary forms, he did not wound the susceptibilities of members of parliament, and when at last in 1770 he appointed Lord North -- a minister of his own selection -- prime minister, the object of his ambition was achieved with the concurrence of a large body of politicians who had nothing in common with the servile band of the king's friends.
As long as the struggle with America was carried on with any hope of success they gained that kind of support which is always forthcoming to a government which shares in the errors and prejudices of its subjects. The expulsion of Wilkes from the House of Commons in 1769, and the refusal of the House to accept him as a member after his re-election, raised a grave constitutional question in which the king was wholly in the wrong; and Wilkes was popular in London and Middlesex. But his case roused no national indignation, and when in 1774 those sharp measures were taken with Boston which led to the commencement of the American rebellion in 1775, the opposition to the course taken by the king made little way either in parliament or in the country. Edmund Burke might point out the folly and inexpedience of the proceedings of the government. Chatham might point out that the true spirit of English government was to be representative, and that that spirit was being violated at home and abroad. George III, who thought that the first duty of the Americans was to obey himself, had on his side the mass of unreflecting Englishmen who thought that the first duty of all colonists was to be useful and submissive to the mother country. The natural dislike of every country engaged in war to see itself defeated was on his side, and when the news of Burgoyne's surrender at Saratoga arrived in 1777, subscriptions of money to raise new regiments poured freely in.
In March 1778 the French ambassador in London announced that a treaty of friendship and commerce had been concluded between France and the new United States of America. Lord North was anxious to resign power into stronger hands, and begged the king to receive Chatham as his prime minister. The king would not hear of it. He would have nothing to say to that perfidious man unless he would humble himself to enter the ministry as North's subordinate. Chatham naturally refused to do anything of the kind, and his death in the course of the year relieved the king of the danger of being again overruled by too overbearing a minister. England was now at war with France, and in 1779 she was also at war with Spain.
George III was still able to control the disposition of office. He could not control the course of events. His very ministers gave up the struggle as hopeless long before he would acknowledge the true state of the case. Before the end of 1779, two of the leading members of the cabinet, Lords Gower and Weymouth, resigned rather than bear the responsibility of so ruinous an enterprise as the attempt to overpower America and France together. Lord North retained office, but he acknowledged to the king that his own opinion was precisely the same as that of his late colleagues.
The year 1780 saw an agitation rising in the country for economical reform, an agitation very closely though indirectly connected with the war policy of the king. The public meetings held in the country on this subject have no unimportant place in the development of the constitution. Since the presentation of the Kentish petition in the reign of William III there had been from time to time upheavings of popular feeling against the doings of the legislature, which kept up the tradition that parliament existed in order to represent the nation. But these upheavings had all been so associated with ignorance and violence as to make it very difficult for men of sense to look with displeasure upon the existing emancipation of the House of Commons from popular control. The Sacheverell riots, the violent attacks upon the Excise Bill, the no less violent advocacy of the Spanish War, the declamations of the supporters of Wilkes at a more recent time, and even in this very year the Gordon riots, were not likely to make thoughtful men anxious to place real power in the hands of the classes from whom such exhibitions of folly proceeded. But the movement for economical reform was of a very different kind. It was carried on soberly in manner, and with a definite practical object. It asked for no more than the king ought to have been willing to concede. It attacked useless expenditure upon sinecures and unnecessary offices in the household, the only use of which was to spread abroad corruption amongst the upper classes. George III could not bear to be interfered with at all, or to surrender any element of power which had served him in his long struggle with the Whigs. He held out for more than another year. The news of the capitulation of Yorktown reached London on the November 25, 1781. On the March 20, 1782 Lord North resigned.
George III accepted the consequences of defeat. He called the Marquis of Rockingham to office at the head of a ministry composed of pure Whigs and of the disciples of the late Earl of Chatham, and he authorized the new ministry to open negotiations for peace. Their hands were greatly strengthened by Rodney's victory over the French fleet, and the failure of the combined French and Spanish attack upon Gibraltar; and before the end of 1782 a provisional treaty was signed with America, preliminaries of peace with France and Spain being signed early in the following year. On the September 3, 1783 the definitive treaties with the three countries were simultaneously concluded. "Sir", said the king to John Adams, the first minister of the United States of America accredited to him, "I wish you to believe, and that it may be understood in America, that I have done nothing in the late contest but what I thought myself indispensably bound to do by the duty which I owed to my people. I will be very frank with you. I was the last to consent to the separation: but the separation having been made and having become inevitable, I have always said, as I say now, that I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power."
Long before the signature of the treaties Rockingham died (July 1, 1782). The king chose Lord Shelburne, the head of the Chatham section of the government, to be prime minister. Fox and the followers of Rockingham refused to serve except under the Duke of Portland, a minister of their own selection, and resigned office. The old constitutional struggle of the reign was now to be fought out once more. Fox, too weak to obtain a majority alone, coalesced with Lord North, and defeated Shelburne in the House of Commons on the February 27, 1783. On the 2nd of April the coalition took office, with Portland as nominal prime minister, and Fox and North the secretaries of state as its real heads.
This attempt to impose upon him a ministry which he disliked made the king very angry. But the new cabinet had a large majority in the House of Commons, and the only chance of resisting it lay in an appeal to the country against the House of Commons. Such an appeal was not likely to be responded to unless the ministers discredited themselves with the nation. Goerge III therefore waited his time. Though a coalition between men bitterly opposed to one another in all political principles and drawn together by nothing but love of office was in itself discreditable, it needed some more positive cause of dissatisfaction to arouse the constituencies, which were by no means so ready to interfere in political disputes at that time as they are now. Such dissatisfaction was given by the India Bill, drawn up by Burke. As soon as it had passed through the Commons the king hastened to procure its rejection in the House of Lords by his personal intervention with the peers. He authorized Lord Temple to declare in his name that he would count any peer who voted for the bill as his enemy. On the December 17, 1783 the bill was thrown out. The next day ministers were dismissed. William Pitt the Younger became prime minister. After some weeks' struggle with a constantly decreasing majority in the Commons, the king dissolved patliament on the March 25, 1784. The country rallied round the crown and the young minister, and Pitt was firmly established in office.
There can be no reasonable doubt that Pitt not only took advantage of the king's intervention in the Lords, but was cognizant of the intrigue before it was actually carried out. It was upon him, too, that the weight of reconciling the country to an administration formed under such circumstances lay. The general result, so far as George III was concerned, was that to all outward appearance he had won the great battle of his life. It was he who was to appoint the prime minister, not any clique resting on a parliamentary support. But the circumstances under which the victory was won were such as to place the constitution in a position very different from that in which it would have been if the victory had been gained earlier in the reign. Intrigue there was indeed in 1783 and 1784 as there had been twenty years before. Parliamentary support was conciliated by Pitt by the grant of royal favors as it had been in the days of Bute. The actual blow was struck by a most questionable message to individual peers. But the main result of the whole political situation was that George III had gone a long way towards disentangling the reality of parliamentary government from its accidents. His ministry finally stood because it had appealed to the constituencies against their representatives. Since then it has properly become a constitutional axiom that no such appeal should be made by the crown itself. But it may reasonably be doubted whether any one but the king was at that time capable of making the appeal. Lord Shelburne, the leader of the ministry expelled by the coalition, was unpopular in the country, and the younger Pitt had not had time to make his great abilities known beyond a limited circle. The real question for the constitutional historian to settle is not whether under ordinary circumstances a king is the proper person to place himself really as well as nominally at the bead of the government; but whether under the special circumstances which existed in 1783 it was not better that the king should call upon the people to support him, than that government should be left in the hands of men who rested their power on close boroughs and the dispensation of patronage, without looking beyond the walls of the House of Commons for support.
That the king gained credit far beyond his own deserts by the glories of Pitt's ministry is beyond a doubt. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that his own example of domestic propriety did much to strengthen the position of his minister. It is true that that life was insufferably dull. No gleams of literary or artistic taste lightened it up. The dependants of the court became inured to dull routine unchequered by loving sympathy. The sons of the household were driven by the sheer weariness of such an existence into the coarsest profligacy. But all this was not visible from a distance. The tide of moral and religious improvement which had set in in England since the days of John Wesley brought popularity to a king who was faithful to his wife, in the same way that the tide of manufacturing industry and scientific progress brought popularity to the minister who in some measure translated into practice the principles of the Wealth of Nations.
Nor were there wanting subjects of importance beyond the circle of politics in which George III showed a lively interest. The voyages of discovery which made known so large a part of the islands and coasts of the Pacific Ocean received from him a warm support. In the early days of the Royal Academy, its finances were strengthened by liberal grants from the privy purse. His favorite pursuit, however, was farming. When Arthur Young was issuing his Annals of Agriculture, he was supplied with information by the king, under the assumed name of Mr. Ralph Robinson, relating to a farm at Petersham.
The life of the king was suddenly clouded over. Early in his reign, in 1765, he had been out of health, and -- though the fact was studiously concealed at the time -- symptoms of mental aberration were even then to be perceived. In October 1788 he was again out of health, and in the beginning of the following month his insanity was beyond a doubt. While Pitt and Fox were contending in the House of Commons over the terms on which the regency should be committed to the Prince of Wales, the king was a helpless victim to the ignorance of physicians and the brutalities of his servants. At last Dr. Willis, who had made himself a name by prescribing gentleness instead of rigor in the treatment of the insane, was called in. Under his more humane management the king rapidly recovered. Before the end of February 1789 he was able to write to Pitt thanking him for his warm support of his interests during his illness. On the April 23, he went in person to St. Paul's to return thanks for his recovery.
The popular enthusiasm which burst forth around St. Paul's was but a foretaste of a popularity far more universal. The French Revolution frightened the great Whig landowners until they made their peace with the king. Those who thought that the true basis of government was aristocratical were now of one mind with those who thought that the true basis of government was monarchical; and these two classes were joined by a far larger multitude which had no political ideas whatever, but which had a moral horror of the guillotine. As Queen Elizabeth I had once been the symbol of resistance to Spain, George was now the symbol of resistance to France. He was not, however, more than the symbol. He allowed Pitt to levy taxes and incur debt, to launch armies to defeat, and to prosecute the English imitators of French revolutionary courses. At last, however, after the Union with Ireland was accomplished, he learned that Pitt was planning a scheme to relieve the Catholics from the disabilities under which they labored. The plan was revealed to him by the chancellor, Lord Loughborough, a selfish and intriguing politician who had served all parties in turn, and who sought to forward his own interests by falling in with the king's prejudices. George III at once took up the position from which he never swerved. He declared that to grant concessions to the Catholics involved a breach of his coronation oath. No one has ever doubted that the king was absolutely convinced of the serious nature of the objection. Nor can there be any doubt that he had the English people behind him. Both in his peace ministry and in his war ministry Pitt had taken his stand on royal favor and on popular support. Both failed him alike now, and he resigned office at once. The shock to the king's mind was so great that it brought on a fresh attack of insanity. This time, however, the recovery was rapid. On the 14th of March 1801 Pitt's resignation was formally accepted, and Addington was installed in office as prime minister.
The king was well pleased with the change. He was never capable of appreciating high merit in any one; and he was unable to perceive that the question on which Pitt had resigned was more than an improper question, with which he ought never to have meddled. "Tell him", he said, in directing his physician to inform Pitt of his restoration to health, "I am now quite well, quite recovered from my illness; but what has he not to answer for, who has been the cause of my having been ill at all?" Addington was a minister after his own mind. Thoroughly honest and respectable, with about the same share of abilities as was possessed by the king himself, he was certainly not likely to startle the world by any flights of genius. But for one circumstance Addington's ministry would have lasted long. So strong was the reaction against the Revolution that the bulk of the nation was almost as suspicious of genius as the king himself. Not only was there no outcry for legislative reforms, but the very idea of reform was unpopular. The country gentlemen were predominant in parliament, and the country gentlemen as a body looked upon Addington with respect and affection. Such a minister was therefore admirably suited to preside over affairs at home in the existing state of opinion. But those who were content with inaction at home would not be content with inaction abroad. In time of peace Addington would have been popular for a season. In time of war even his warmest admirers could not say that he was the man to direct armies in the most terrible struggle which had to that point been conducted by an English government.
For the moment this difficulty was not felt. On the October 1, 1801 preliminaries of peace were signed between England and France, to be converted into the definitive peace of Amiens on the March 27, 1802. The ruler of France was now Napoleon Bonaparte, and few persons in England believed that he had any real purpose of bringing his aggressive violence to an end. "Do you know what I call this peace?" said the king; "an experimental peace, for it is nothing else. But it was unavoidable."
The king was right. On the May 18, 1803 the declaration of war was laid before parliament. The war was accepted by all classes as inevitable, and the French preparations for an invasion of England roused the whole nation to a glow of enthusiasm only equalled by that felt when the Armada threatened its shores. On the 26th of October the king reviewed the London volunteers in Hyde Park. He found himself the center of a great national movement with which he heartily sympathized, and which heartily sympathized with him.
On February 12, 1804 the king's mind was again affected. When he recovered, he found himself in the midst of a ministerial crisis. Public feeling allowed but one opinion to prevail in the country -- that Pitt, not Addington, was the proper man to conduct the administration in time of war. Pitt was anxious to form an administration on a broad basis, including Fox and all prominent leaders of both parties. The king would not hear of the admission of Fox. His dislike of him was personal as well as political, as he knew that Fox had had a great share in drawing the prince of Wales into a life of profligacy. Pitt accepted the king's terms, and formed an administration in which he was the only man of real ability. Eminent men, such as Lord Grenville, refused to join a ministry from which the king had excluded a great statesman on purely personal grounds.
The whole question was reopened on Pitt's death on the 23rd of January (January 23) 1806. This time the king gave way. The ministry of "All the Talents", as it was called, included Fox amongst its members. At first the king was observed to appear depressed at the necessity of surrender. But Fox's charm of manner soon gained upon him. "Mr Fox", said the king, "I little thought that you and I should ever meet again in this place; but I have no desire to look back upon old grievances, and you may rest assured I never shall remind you of them." On the 13th of September (September 13), Fox died, and it was not long before the king and the ministry were openly in collision. The ministry proposed a measure enabling all subjects of the crown to serve in the army and navy in spite of religious disqualifications. The king objected even to so slight a modification of the laws against the Catholics and Dissenters, and the ministers consented to drop the bill. The king asked more than this. He demanded a written and positive engagement that this ministry would never, under any circumstances, propose to him "any measure of concession to the Catholics, or even connected with the question." The ministers very properly refused to bind themselves for the future. They were consequently turned out of office, and a new ministry was formed with the Duke of Portland as first lord of the treasury and Spencer Perceval as its real leader. The spirit of the new ministry was distinct hostility to the Catholic claims. On April 27, 1807 a dissolution of parliament was announced, and a majority in favor of the king's ministry was returned in the elections which speedily followed.
The elections of 1807, like the elections of 1784, gave the king the mastery of the situation. In other respects they were the counterpart of one another. In 1784 the country declared, though perhaps without any clear conception of what it was doing, for a wise and progressive policy. In 1807 it declared for an unwise and retrogressive policy, with a very clear understanding of what it meant. It is in his reliance upon the prejudices and ignorance of the country that the constitutional significance of the reign of George III appears. Every strong government derives its power from its representative character. At a time when the House of Commons was less really representative than at any other, a king was on the throne who represented the country in its good and bad qualities alike, in its hatred of revolutionary violence, its moral sturdiness, its contempt of foreigners, and its defiance of all ideas which were in any way strange. Therefore it was that his success was not permanently injurious to the working of the constitution as the success of Charles I would have been. If he were followed by a king less English than himself, the strength of representative power would pass into other hands than those which held the sceptre.
The overthrow of the ministry of All the Talents was the last political act of constitutional importance in which George III took part. The substitution of Perceval for Portland as the nominal head of the ministry in 1809 was not an event of any real significance, and in 1811 the reign practically came to an end. The king's reason finally broke down after the death of the princess Amelia, his favorite child; and the Prince of Wales, later King George IV, became prince regent. The remaining nine years of George III's life were passed in insanity and blindness, and he died on January 19, 1820.
Father: Prince Frederick (son of King George II; b. Febrary 1,-1707, d. March 31, 1751)
Mother: Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha (b. November 30, 1719, m. May 8, 1736, d. May 8, 1772
Wife: Princess Sophia Charlotte (b. May 19, 1744, m. September 8, 1761, d. November 17, 1818)
Son: King George IV (b. August 12, 1762, d. June 26, 1830)
Son: Prince Frederick (b. August 16, 1763, d. January 5, 1827)
Daughter: Princess Charlotte (b. September 29, 1766, d. October 6, 1828)
Son: Prince Edward Augustus (b. November 2, 1767, d. January 23, 1820)
Daughter: Princess Augusta Sophia (b. November 8, 1768, d. September 22, 1840)
Daughter: Princess Elizabeth (b. May 22, 1770, d. January 10, 1840)
Son: Ernest Augustus I (King of Hanover; b. June 5, 1771, d. November 19, 1851)
UK Monarch 1760-1820
Risk Factors: Gout
http://www.nndb.com/people/948/000068744/
New!
NNDB MAPPER
Create a map starting with
King George III
Requires Flash 7+ and Javascript.
Do you know something we don't?
Submit a correction or make a comment about this profile
[16] http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/king-george-endorses-new-england-restraining-act
[17] (Cresswell) From River Clyde to Tymochtee and Col. William Crawford by Grace U. Emahiser, 1969 pg. 138.
[18] (Minutes of Youghuogheny Co., PA).
[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Watertown
[20] http://www.nps.gov/archive/fone/1754.htm
[21] Journal kept by the Distinguished Hessian Field Jaeger Corps during the Campaigns of the Royal Army of Great Britain in North America, Translated by Bruce E. Burgoyne 1986
[22] Diary of the American War; A Hessian Journal by Captain Johann Ewald pg. 71
[23] In the Kentucky Land Office at Frankfort, Book 1, page 107; Surveyed July 20th, 1791. The number of acres were 1,000, listed for Valentine Crawford’s heirs. County, Military and watercourse on Indian Creek. From River Clyde to Tymochtee and Col. William Crawford by Grace U. Emahiser. 1969. pp. 98-99.
[24] Ancestors of Forrest Roger Garnett, Page 908.21
[25] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/
[26] http://www.brookecountywvgenealogy.org/CONNELL.html
[27] [1] Gedenkbuch, Opfer der Verfolgung der Juden unter der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft in Deutschland 1933-1945. 2., wesentlich erweiterte Auflage, Band II G-K, Bearbeitet und herausgegben vom Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, 2006, pg. 1033-1035,. [2]Memorial Book: Victims of the Persecution of Jews under the National Socialist Oppression in Germany, 1933-1945
[28] National Archives, Prague; Terezín Initiative Institute National Archives, Prague, Terezin Initiative Institute Credit, copyright Credit, copyright
[29] Proposed Descendants of William Smythe.
[30] [1] Gedenkbuch, Opfer der Verfolgung der Juden unter der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft in Deutschland 1933-1945. 2., wesentlich erweiterte Auflage, Band II G-K, Bearbeitet und herausgegben vom Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, 2006, pg. 1033-1035,.
{2}Gedenkbuch Berlins . Der judishchen Opfer des Nationalsozialismus
“Ihre Namen mogen nie versessen werden!”
[31] http://www.cv6.org/1943/1943.htm
[32] On This Day in America by John Wagman.
[33] [1] Killing Hitler, Military Channel 4/04/2004
[34] [2] Hitlers Manager’s, Alfred Jodi, The General. 10/15/2005 HISTI
[35] [3] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/
[36] William Harrison Goodlove Civil War Diary annotated by Jeffery Lee Goodlove
[37] (State Capital Memorial, Austin, TX, February 11, 2012.)
[38] UNION IOWA VOLUNTEERS, 24th Regiment, Iowa Infantry: http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/template.cfm?unitname=24th%20Regiment%2C%20Iowa%20Infantry&unitcode=UIA0024RI
[39] History of Logan County and Ohio, O.L. Baskin & Co., Chicago, 1880, page 692/
[40] The Twentieth Century Biographical Dictionary of Notable Americans: Volume VI L.
[41] [1] Gedenkbuch, Opfer der Verfolgung der Juden unter der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft in Deutschland 1933-1945. 2., wesentlich erweiterte Auflage, Band II G-K, Bearbeitet und herausgegben vom Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, 2006, pg. 1033-1035,
• . {2}Der judishchen Opfer des Nationalsozialismus
“Ihre Namen mogen nie vergessen werden!”
[42] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/
[43] Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman, Editor, page 1766.
[44] French Children of the Holocaust, A Memorial by Serge Klarsfeld, 43.
[45] Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman, Editor, page 1772.
[46] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/
[47] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/
[48] [1] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/
[49] [1] Gedenkbuch, Opfer der Verfolgung der Juden unter der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft in Deutschland 1933-1945. 2., wesentlich erweiterte Auflage, Band II G-K, Bearbeitet und herausgegben vom Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, 2006, pg. 1033-1035,.
{2}Gedenkbuch Berlins . Der judishchen Opfer des Nationalsozialismus
“Ihre Namen mogen nie versessen werden!”
[50] On This Day in America by John Wagman.
[51] Nature Center, Crabtree Forest Preserve, Barrington, IL March 11, 2012
[52] US New and World Report, Secrets of Christianity, April 2010. Pages 9 and 10.
[53] Proposed Descendants of William Smythe.
[54] Holy Grail in America, 9/20/2009.
[55] http://westfordknight.blogspot.com/2009/04/templars-and-shroud-of-turin.html
[56] http://www.hookedx.com/film.asp
[57] http://westfordknight.blogspot.com/2009/04/templars-and-shroud-of-turin.html
[58] Linda Pedersen email July 21, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment