User:Stephen2nd/Archive page May-Sept 2010

MAY - January 2011 Stephen2nd (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Great Britain 1603-1714
?
 * A fantastic new article that is absolutely fine as it is. Well done - a brilliant piece of writing Jack1956 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Steve. It was my pleasure. It does get pretty lonely in here. Usually I only hear from someone when I've done something wrong! Jack1956 (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Anthony Appleyard. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Anthony Appleyard. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Steve. Looks good to go to me. Best wishes Jack1956 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve. Thanks for inviting me to comment. I'll be glad to have a thorough read once I've got my final essays submitted at the end of this week; the RSI in my shoulders from being hunched over a laptop hopefully having subsided also :) Regards Endrick   Shellycoat  22:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Coments left User talk:Stephen2nd/Kingdom of Great Britain 1603-1714 Endrick   Shellycoat  10:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto Endrick  Shellycoat  22:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Kingdoms of Great Britain. Biruitorul Talk 23:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Great Britain (1603-1714). Biruitorul Talk 18:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oath of Allegiance, as regards your comments
The problem with your comment is "country of birth" does not denote subject or national status in the UK, or most other Nationality Law outside of the settlement colonies in the Americas. The British Nationality Act 1981 (active from 1983) section one describes a British Citizen by birth as being someone born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to British Citizen parents or parents who are "settled" at the time of the childs birth. In our law, this only automatically refers to Irish Citizen parents. Under Section 2 of the said Act, a British Citizen by descent is someone who is born outside of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with at least one British Citizen parent. On the other hand, someone born in the United Kingdom, whose parents are not British or Irish Citizens, or who are not expressly granted "Indefinite Leave to Remain" by Her Majesty's Government via the Home Office would not be British in any shape or form, but would be born a foreigner, subject to immigration control, and in no way held to bear allegiance under the Common Law of Scots, England, or Northern Ireland to Her Majesty The Queen. Therefore, under our law, if your parents were British and you were born in Outer Mongolia, you would still be one of Her Majesty's Subjects, but, if your parents were Mongolian and you were born in that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland referred to as "England", then you would be very likely to be born solely a Mongolian National. This is a serious issue with your definition. Indeed, in 1983 when the 1981 Act was brought into force by Statutory Instrument by the relevant Minister, many, as you correctly put - "British Subject: Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" lost that status. What you regard yourself is irrelevant for the point of an encyclopedia entry - "Her Majesty's Subjects" is a phrase that has long been used in the Common Law to define such status in addition to the other types of British Nationality (including but not limited to British Subject, British Subject with right of abode, British National (Overseas), British Overseas Territories Citizen, British Protected Person etc. A friend of mine has a driving licence that states his place of birth as "France". His passport as "Bologne-Sur-Mer", yet is solely a British Citizen, and has no claim to French Nationality due to the fact both of his parents are British.

The sovereign status of the realm under the Treaty of Union 1707 (and the Treaty of Union 1801) was to extinguish the existence of the former Kingdoms, creating an all incorporating Union - therefore Her Majesty only has BRITISH subjects, not English or Scottish or Northern Irish ones. "White English" is an ethnicity, and should be reserved solely for this purpose. Indeed my own documents read, Nationality: British Citizen, Country of Birth: United Kingdom/England (only on the census), Ethnicity: White Scottish, Domicile: Scotland.

This may seem to be confusing and strange to many, however, popular culture especially American Television has led many to believe that the Jus Soli system of birth within the national territory providing nationality applies here, it does not, European nationality Laws including those of the United Kingdom are primarily based on the principle of Jus Sanguinis.

It is also important to remember - not all immigrants take the oath, as not all immigrants will become British Nationals.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.37.184 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, confusing and strange indeed, as is most (British &/or European) political rhetoric. However, with reference to such (modern) rhetoric, in your (widely believed) statement; (The sovereign status of the realm under the Treaty of Union 1707/1801 was to extinguish the existence of the former Kingdoms), may I disagree with you, in terms of published encyclopedic references? I refer you to all 88 editions of Whitaker's Almanack (1884-1972), each of which quote “The Kingdom of Scotland,” in indexes, most sections having 300+ entries, all of which refer to “Scotland as a Kingdom in the present term.” Also, none of which denounced its existence as a “Kingdom” via any Treaty’s of Union.


 * These were all published under the scrutiny of every Member of Parliament, and Lords, government, and by all monarchs from Victoria to Elizabeth II, and accepted as factual. Accordingly, the “Kingdom of Scotland,” was not extinguished by the Treaty of Union. Although, I do not know the exact date it (the encyclopedic existence of the Kingdom of Scotland) was censored, the editions were originally published by J Whitaker & Sons from 1868 to 1997, then by The Stationery Office, and since 2003 by A & C Black. I assume it was suppressed between 1997, and creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999.


 * Irrelevant of the opinion of British books, political rhetoric, or those educated with such, including all such opinions voiced in post 2001 Wikipedia articles, Public opinion of the 5 million Scottish peoples of the Kingdom of Scotland, is the deciding factor in this case. Irrelevant of any (British) census forms &c, ask any or all indigenous peoples of Scotland what their nationality is and they will answer SCOTTISH, ask them their county of birth is they will answer SCOTLAND. To demand that they are all only British; is a British insult. Regards (matrilineal 1st born son of a McDonald) Stephen2nd (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, for a start, many Protestants in Glasgow will gladly identify themselves as British, particularly the older generations, and considering the City of Edinburgh has almost 20% of its population born in England of Scottish parentage - the definition falls exceptionally short. Fortunately, I can quite factually tell you, this is no political rhetoric - It is the law of all constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the words "all incorporating Union" are the words used in the judgement of the Scottish courts regarding the Union of 1707. Indeed, the articles you refer to were probably supressed when the Scottish Courts ruled on the point of law that the Kingdom had ceased to exist, under Article 1 of the Treaty of Union 1707 becoming the "Kingdom of Great Britain", the name then changing with subsequent Unions, and independence for Saorstat Eireann.

As a Scottish National Party member, it pains me after many days of studying the law of Scotland and the wider United Kingdom and to have to admit it - but - that it is the way the LAW as it currently stands, which can be different to anyone's opinions. You are talking about the Oath of Allegiance, a legal act, with legal significance. Wikipeida articles do not change that, nor does the opinion of people, and I would strongly encourage you to refrain from writing articles through the prism of a political opinion, it directly damages the purpose of Wikipedia and creates an exceptional note of bias in articles. Whilst you are free to hold your view, if you wish to change the reality of the situation, you may find it more useful to petition Parliament than attempt to digitally whitewash history.

Never at any point during the lifetime of the independent Kingdoms did there exist such a thing as citizens of Scotland, England or Ireland - After the Union that continues to be the case - as it would require a Parliamentary Act to create such a status. In fact, I direct you to read "Calvin's Case", regarding the nature of nationality prior to the Union. The judgement of the English Court refers to the personal allegiance of the subject to the Monarch in his/her person, and indeed as early as the 1200's, the English Crown had recognised the children of English father's as being subjects of the King of England. Scots Law on the other hand, is based on Roman Law, where 'jus sanguinis' was the primary method of transmission for nationality - and caused a major decline in Anglo-Scottish relations in the 1500s following the marriage of Mary, Queen of Scots to someone claimed by both Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stewart as their subjects. Indigenous people of course, refer to the ethnic groups native to a land. Indeed, whilst many Europeans have been born in New Zealand, they are not native or indigenous, that status belongs solely to the Maori - on the other hand we have many non-indigenous British subjects, who could be born with that status and thus not have to take a citizenship oath.

To see British Nationality Law and the effect of EU Law in action on this topic may I direct you to the Chen Case heard in the European Court of Justice? This shows quite aptly that British Law does not accept somebody born on its soil as automatically being a "British Citizen". Let alone an indigenous Citizen of a former sovereign state (the status needed to confer nationality). You will note that the nationality recieved was that of the Irish Republic, which was forced to change its nationality laws because of their consequences and due the subsequent diplomatic pressure on the Irish by nearly every other EU State. The same is true internationally. "Palestinian" Arabs, are deemed to have no nationality, and are stateless, as there is no sovereign Palestinian State, regardless of the opinion of the minority/majority of the population.

82.41.37.184 (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My request to User talk:82.41.37.184, (whoever you are) was your edit needs rephrasing. (There is no such thing as English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish (UK) Citizens, and equally, that England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland, and these kingdoms of such, no longer existed. I am well aware of who the British are in context of its (indigenous), I.e. English-British, Scottish-British, Welsh-British, and Irish-British peoples, who paid for its infrastructure, in thousands of years of taxes, and via sacrificing their lives, in defence of these Realms.


 * With reference attempting to change the opinion of people, through the prism of political opinion - through bias in articles &c, I usually regard this as the sole territory of political parties - purveying their political rhetoric - to suit their own political bias &/or agendum. With regards your SNP opinion, as to the legal significance of swearing any allegiances, as I wrote a majority of the text of Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom), (10-15/06/09: 11,504 to 41,853 bytes), I am aware of its stated legal, and other unstated, significances. Whether a member of SNP or any of the other 140+ (UK) political parties, I suggest you don’t - “strongly encourage me to refrain from” - anything, whether a “prism of political opinion?” or SNP-POV of bias, veiled warnings usually come with or else - or else what? Stephen2nd (talk)

And here we have it. Yes, you may well have written a lot of it - however, it is wrong. The defition you have given is exceedingly incorrect from the point of view of Scots, Northern Ireland or even ENGLISH Law. There is no point taking offence to something that was not designed to be an insult - and if you are allergic to peer criticism, then perhaps you should retire from the encyclopedia writing cult. The only reason I raised my membership of the SNP was to indicate the changes I made to the article were not driven by "political rhetoric", indeed, I was first, and I always shall be a man of the law, before being a man of politics. What you have written is not suitable for an encyclopedia - in fact, as far as "political rhetoric" abounds, your article is possibly the epitome of that very same - and is no doubt driven by the same motive that caused you to burden the DVLA with changing your "country of birth" to one that has not existed as a sovereign entity for in excess of three centuries. A veiled warning, i'm afraid this is not, just a friendly suggestion that you shouldn't write articles on points of law if you are ignorant of the meaning and effect of the very same that have been previously defined by the Courts in a way that your article contradicts - it is damaging to the reputation of wikipedia as a source of unbiased information, and lends the greatest of credibility to news articles such as this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/wikipedia-under-the-microscope-over-accuracy-466444.html.

82.41.37.184 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC) 82.41.37.184 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Judicial review in English law
Hey, I realised that 198.188.96.4 had deleted a pile of stuff from the beginning of the above article, but you hadn't realised when you went in to fix spelling, so I've reinstated it for you without losing your spelling corrections. Hope that helps! AndyB (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dickens
REF: (WP:MARKUP, WP:CITE. Undid revision 383070281 by Stephen2nd. Hi Spanglej, you're probably right. Unfortunately, I don't know how to upload images, so I tried to reproduce the page, as seen in the Exhibition catalogue. I did cite the "Victorian Era Exhibition in Earls Court," although remarkably very little is known about this event, my references were photocopied directly from the only known copy, (London reference library). This was an actual "Dickens Memorial," previously unknown, which I am sure is of interest to most Dickensians. How do you think this should be presented in the article? should I box the text? or write a new section on the exhibition &/or the memorial? Ta Steve :) Stephen2nd (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Stephen2nd. Thanks for your edits to Charles Dickens. I realise it must have taken an age to reproduce the pamphlet. No doubt all the detail would be interesting to avid Dickensians, but I think on the basis of judging what is relevant to an encyclopaedia, this is perhaps not the place for a full exposition of one memorial. I'd bare in mind also, that the page is pretty overloaded with images as it is. I would say a few lines of prose referencing the exhibit with full citation and some good quality links would be the best option, if possible.


 * Not having seen the pamphlet, I would first suggest doing a thorough internet trawl for reference of it and the memorial on Dickens. Have a good look in Google books. See if these sources mention it at all. Maybe you have tried all this. If you find it, I'd recommend a brief line under the 'museums and festivals' sections, ref'ing the source and add a hyperlink.


 * If the catalogue page is A4 or more, photocopying or photographing it might render the text too small to make a useful WP image. I'm no expert on uploading images, however, I suggest going to Wikicommons and | uploading a file - follow the instructions.  I imagine that the catalogue is reproduced in a modern day book. If so you'd need to be careful with what licence you choose, even though the copy-right on the catalogue would have long expired. Even if you don't include it on the Dickens WP page, it would be a useful resource as a Wikicommons image for others' use and reference.


 * Those are my 2 cent suggestions. I hope they are of use. I would ask Old Moonraker. He's had a lot of input on the Dickens article and is an old hand.


 * I will reply in your page so we can keep the conversation together. Hope it was ok to copy and paste your message here.


 * Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again and thanks for the imput. I've re-written the 'Victorian Era Exhibition' section, into the Joseph Grego article. I may create a new VEE 1897 Article, with a seperate section on the Dickens archives &c, then link it to Charles Dickens. I'll re-check all my facts first, then list my proposed edits, here, for consensus. May I begin with; "A Dinner at Poplar Walk 1833," was not Dickens first story, according to :


 * Exhibit (250) Victorian Era Exhibition 1897: (Quote)

The Earliest recognised Dickens' Manuscript; Original Autograph Manuscript - The first page of an unpublished - "Travestie of Othello," written by Charles Dickens in 1832 and 1833.

Regards Steve, Stephen2nd (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve, A new article sounds just the thing. I hope there is a typo in your sentence "May I begin with..." and it should read "I may begin with..". I am no authority, we are all learning as we go. I'm sure all this can feels fiddly and long winded, sometimes puncturing the balloon of our excitement to share things with the world. Syntax to learn, guidelines to get familiar with, communities to navigate and get to know. I've only been editing 18 months and I feel I am just starting to get the hang of it, though there is the proverbial iceberg to explore yet. I'm sure younger and/or more techie minds can go faster. Anyway, it looks like you are putting a lot of work in and making progress.


 * I'd suggest putting the artefact listing in Joseph Grego in a 'note' formation as they are tangential to the key subject of Joseph Grego and might get snaffled under WP:COATRACK or WP:Flea. An article such as Anna Akhmatova demos what I mean. Details of specific translations and micro-detail are filed here. I'm happy to do some formatting if you'd like.


 * Onwards and upwards! Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've now started the new article User:Stephen2nd/Victorian Era Exhibition 1897. I'll keep filling it full of avaliable references, and format it as I go. I would be most pleased to accept your offer of any formatting, and any other contributions you, or anyone else, would contribute to what seems a very interesting and informative article. I may begin with the Times archives 1987, which has at least 15 pages on the VEE, (I don't have an account to actualy veiw these yet, but I'll see how the article progresses). Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Stephen2nd (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

supporters
You asked me to work on the format, so I did that, using such content as I found there. Sorry I didn't catch the one dragon's tincture. As to whether it's "ready for prime time" I have no strong opinion.

By the way, when you use parentheses, what do they mean? (Mine mean: the enclosed is less important than the rest, and can be omitted without damage to grammar or meaning.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, I’ve no complaints about the quality of your work whatsoever, please accept my apologies that the Article structure didn’t work out, oh well, back to the drawing board.
 * As for my use of parenthesis’, and colons &c, this is a bad habit picked up over many years of ‘note taking,’ from references in lots of books. My research is best described in weight, rather than numbers. When I speed-read the parenthesis highlights relevant bits. I also use marker-pens, different coloured pens &/or pencils, arrows, and also a variety of squiggly lines &c, in heraldry, this is called tricking! (Technically, WikiArticles also include references within parenthesis. It is just quicker for me to write the whole reference in brackets, rather than numbers- with a secondary list). Nothing personal, just force of habit. Ta and thanks 4 now, Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind, great format so I've launched Royal Supporters of England :) Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of England (1558-1603).svg
Hi Stephen2nd,

This is what I have found from my own research:

"Her [Queen Bess] supporters the lion and the dragon, also remained the same, although there is some controversy concerning the tincture of the dragon. The Elizabethans were inclined to the lavish use of gold and the dragon supporter is found gilded all over. Nevertheless the earlier Tudor dragon, adopted by Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond, and Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, was red."

A blazon I found for Henry VIII's coat of arms states: "A dragon gules, garnished and armed or"

both from 'The Royal Heraldry of England' -J.H. & R.V. Pinces. Using this source (not all of them agree of course) I concluded that the red dragon 'garnished' with gold is probably the best solution, since this is often the case depicted in most Tudor manuscripts (although not always in sculptures) and if I had made the dragon or, I would have had some other user here to complain and make me change it to gules.

As for the motto the traditional motto 'Dieu et Mon droit' is indeed consistant for all reigns from Henry VI downwards, however some monarchs have their own mottos which they often have depicted on their personal arms. I no longer have the source but there was actually a copy of the London Gazette in 1702 in which Queen Anne states that it was 'Her Majesty's pleasure' that all Royal Arms display her personal motto of 'Semper Eadem' during her reign. Sodacan (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

royal supporters
Hiya. I happened to follow a link from Tamfang's tpage, and saw you were redirecting from here to the article. I figure it was just a leftover from when you moved out of your sandbox, but cross-namespace redirects aren't really allowed (unless something has changed?), so I commented out the redir. Dunno if you want to blank it or delete it or what, your call. Cheers. → ROUX   ₪  22:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, no probs & thanks, just a leftover from when I launched the initial article. I cut & pasted into the new article, rather than just changing its name from the sandbox version. Ta Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you put on that page, it will soon vanish. —Tamfang (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

you're invited
Based on your interest in history, genealogy, and nobility, you may find these 2 articles and debates interesting. Both articles are related, need to be improved, and might benefit from your insight.

Articles_for_deletion/Francis_Martin_O'Donnell

Articles_for_deletion/Vice_Great_Seneschal_of_Ireland

ReidarM (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ad Hominem
Anton Sherwood bronto@pobox.com 360-383-7128 Post Office Box 1853 Bellingham, Wash. 98227

I can't make sense of your description of the DERMOTT anagram. While I do see that D.R.O.T appear (in that order) on one side of the central 'N', there's nothing in the description to say why the 'I' should be skipped; and the E.M.T on the other side are not even in the right order.

And how did this come up in court?? —Tamfang (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not that I don't understand the jumping sequence; that's perfectly clear. What's less clear is where you find ...TMEnDROT... —Tamfang (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC) — Or, to put it another way, why the secret word is DERMOTT rather than DORMOTIET. —Tamfang (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

DORMOTIET is what I get if I apply your instructions to ...ET MOn DROIT. TMEnDROT is what I get if I start from DERMOTT and follow your instructions 'backward'; that is, it is the string which, according to the pivot rule, produces DERMOTT. Perhaps it takes a special kind of logic, not available to literal-minded plodders like me, to unravel the secrets properly. —Tamfang (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The odds against finding a given string of letters when you transform a given string of letters by a given procedure are pretty high, yes. The odds against finding some interesting string of letters when you apply all procedures to the given string are much lower.  The odds against finding gibberish that kinda sorta vaguely resembles a word, as DORMOTIET (what your procedure gets out of ET MON DROIT) kinda sorta vaguely resembles DERMOTT, are too low to be interesting. —Tamfang (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read that bit. (How many times must I say it?) What you haven't said is why you pointed to DERMOTT other than to come up with what you wanted to find rather than DORMOTIET what a more obvious procedure would generate.


 * Is this supposed to explain something? —Tamfang (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You can find anything encoded in anything if you try. See what Bible code says about Moby-Dick. —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 29


 * So I can call you a lunatic, but not a liar? Okay. —Tamfang (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fox-Davies &c say that some motti (and some shields) contain references to the bearer's name; examples include Ne Vile Velis and Festina Lente. They also list some motti derived from well-established historic incidents (in contrast to some mysterious motti attributed to dubious or legendary incidents). —Tamfang (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Different strokes for different folks, I guess. If I were on trial for such a charge, I wouldn't bring up such contrived evidence of a claim to the crown in my defense, unless my plea were "not guilty by reason of insanity". —Tamfang (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Angled shields are as "anomalous" as other arbitrary variations in display; they don't all need to be explained. —Tamfang (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't notice that "ww" begins and ends by implying that everyone else considers you a crank? —Tamfang (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Response
Dear Anton Sherwood (“depressed elvish copperbeard, SCA “Cloak of arms”: Vert, two bendlets wavy between two suns Or. Who awarded you this, the king of the fairies?) Do you really think that I am not aware of the ‘blatantly obvious’ circumstances of my stated situation? I am also equally aware of the concept of Ad Hominem ie attacking the arguer, rather than the argument. Lunatic, insanity and a crank? You could have at least waited until I said I was the “Rightful sovereign of England! However, a correct “British” terminology for such people of my Ilk, are stalker, psychopath, nutter, and maniac! OK? Stephen2nd (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No doubt there is a correct grammatical way to describe these anagrammatic-procedures, but we are both aware, I am not very good at writing understandable and descriptive text. Should you wish to rephrase the description of these procedures I would be most obliged.


 * Sequence of the N=pivot:
 * a.	1st D =	(N - 1)
 * b.	2nd E =	(2 – N - 1)
 * c.	3rd R = (2 – N - 1 – 3)
 * d.	4th M = (4 – 2 – N - 1 – 3)
 * e.	5th O = (4 – 2 – N - 1 – 3 – 5)
 * f.	6th T = (6 – 4 – 2 – N – 1 – 3 – 5)
 * g.	7th T = (6 – 4 – 2 – N – 1 – 3 – 5 – 7)
 * Set “jumping” order of DERMOTT = [6 – 4 – 2 – 1 – 3 – 5 – 7] (Neubecker p165)


 * PENSE on HONI SOIT =
 * a.	1st S = (N – 1)
 * b.	2nd T = (2 – N - 1)
 * c.	3rd E = (2 – N - 1 – 3)
 * d.	4th P = (4 – 2 – N - 1 – 3)
 * e.	5th H = (4 – 2 – N - 1 – 3 – 5)
 * f.	6th E = (6 – 4 – 2 – N – 1 – 3 – 5)
 * g.	7th N = (6 – 4 – 2 – N – 1 – 3 – 5 – 7)
 * Set “jumping” order of STEPHEN = [6 – 4 – 2 – 1 – 3 – 5 – 7] (Neubecker p165)
 * (reversed ESNEP) on HONI SOIT = [7 – 5 – 3 – 1 – 2 – 4 – 6] (Neubecker p164)


 * Further refs
 * The three letters missing from the name-anagram [O+N+I] as in [H – ONI] on the garter. The O-N-I also represent [‘on’ the ‘N’] and [‘in’ the ‘N’]. The ‘O’ & ‘I ‘left & right of ‘N’.
 * Reversed “N” = Swinton of the Ilk (c.1271). (p353; fig 902.) Also, reversed N displayed at The Kings Manor, York, also seen on the Wikipedia logo.
 * McDermott (Fox-Davies AoH. pl. xxii) = Shield angle of “son” = Haig of Bemethside (p352) (NB: Using these references, can you find the "son of" hidden in the Garter?).


 * NB: I will answer the 2nd question in the New Year, when the 1911 Official Secrets Act expires. In the meantime, thanks for your valuable assistances to date, and if I don't Wiki over the next few days, you have yourself a nice Christmas. Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The 'two' mottos are linked in many ways, and there are three definitive 'secret words'; (1) 'stephen', (2) 'Mc', and (3) 'dermott'. Given that (1) 'Stephen' is a name, it follows that (2) 'Dermott' is also a name; ie Stephen (Mc) Dermott. Although I've found numerous cross-referenced heraldic and genealogical links to each of these 'secret words' (and many others), in this context, I cannot see any logical relevance in the grouped-letters (TMEnDROT), or (DORMOTIET), which are meaningless. Stephen2nd (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My instructions of my pivot rule, are general guides based on historical precedence. The statistical odds of randomly generating a sequential formulae of the seven numbers, [6 – 4 – 2 – 1 – 3 – 5 – 7], (on any phrase, to represent a common name), cannot be stated as coincidental. More so, statistical odds of randomly generating matching sequential formulae, (connected phrases, same seven numbers, two common names), is astronomical. Even more so, defining the third formulae [7 – 5 – 3 – 1 – 2 – 4 – 6], creating the secret (Mc).


 * Irrelevant of my especial advantage, of having this birth-name of “Stephen McDermott,” from which I discovered these anomalies, I too, am a literal-minded plodder. However, you are correct, in that lateral and critical thinking, (ie principals of reasoning, analysis of argument, weighing of evidence, and valid deduction), is a special kind of logic; as taught to me in many (US) philosophy classes, under Professor Monroe Beardsley in 1979. However again, this special logic is not necessary if you have two fingers, and the Royal Arms. Stephen2nd (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The defendant was asked by the Judge to demonstrate to the court, how the name of DERMOTT could be see on the Royal Arms. The defendant demonstrated this, by raising his right hand, placing his little finger on N of Dieu et moN droit, then pivoting his index finger, alternatively right then left seven times, pointing to the name D-E-R-M-O-T-T.Stephen2nd (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * [ ET MON DROIT ]


 * D, the first letter to the right
 * E, the fourth letter to the left
 * R, the second letter to the right
 * M, the second letter to the left
 * O, the third letter to the right
 * T, the third letter to the left
 * T, the fifth letter to the right
 * [ 1=R, 4=L, 2=R, 2=L, 3=R, 3=L, 5=R ]
 * [ 1-4-2-2-3-3-5 = R-L-R-L-R-L-R ]

December 2010 (UTC)


 * [ H- P E N S E -T ]


 * S, the first letter to the right
 * T, the third letter to the right
 * E, the second letter to the right
 * P, the second letter to the left
 * H, the third letter to the left
 * E, the first letter to the left
 * N, the pivot
 * [ 1=R, 3=R, 2=R, 2=L, 3=L, 1=L. ]
 * [ 1-3-2 - 1-3-2 = R-R-R - L-L-L ]


 * [ H- E S N E P -T ]


 * S, the first letter to the left
 * T, the third letter to the right
 * E, the second letter to the left
 * P, the second letter to the right
 * H, the third letter to the left
 * E, the first letter to the right
 * N, the pivot
 * [ 1=L, 3=R, 2=L, 2=R, 3=L, 1=R. ]
 * [ 1-3-2 - 2-3-1 = L-R-L-R-L-R ]

Firstly, let us get this into perspective. I, personally, did not create, write &/or encipher anything in the motto &/or Garter &/or the Royal Arms, &/or Moby Dick, &/or the Bible. However, IMO, I do regard the Bible as relative to these ‘anomalies,’ in reference to the historical procedures of giving an oath in UK courts. I.e. The demanded left-hand on the Bible and raising the right-hand before this Royal Arms motto, ie to God and my right. You, may literally question anything else in reference to these matters, never ever, question my oath before God!

Secondly, I am aware of the concept of cryptology, including Bible, Da Vinci codes &c,. With specific reference to your ‘motto’ query; Fox-Davies, Boutell, &c, &c, (all died before I was born!), all state that motto’s contain some reference to the owners NAME. My initial discovery of the L-R-L-R &c, DERMOTT process on the motto, and the later discovery of the STEPHEN in the Garter, confounded me (I must admit) for many years. And yes indeed, I gave the [ R-L-R-L-R-L-R ] structure precedence over (your) un-equal numeric sequence.

However, the [ R-R-R - L-L-L ] of the STEPHEN sequence, allowed me the discovery of the [ H – P ] in front of the H-ar-p, the [ HO-pense ] as in ‘land of HOPE and glory’, and the [HOPENS sesame], in association with Sir Richard Burton. Moreover, in terms of Heraldry, answered the (as yet historically unexplained, as yet unquestioned, and as yet unanswered) anomaly why certain ‘shields are angled.’ Many years later, (plodder?) I reversed the PENSE, to match the DERMOTT sequence, (subject to other, as yet, 'secret' heraldic references).

Lastly, I presume you mean…..Why I pointed to…..what the judge wanted to find…., rather than (specifically, anything else!) what a more obvious procedure would generate? Please excuse me but IMO, when in the dock, and a prosecutor representing REGINA, produces de facto evidence; “I attempted to usurp the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha monarchy,” (also, that I co-signed an affidavit with a Commonwealth Premier to the same effect), under the (then) existing death penalty, the word DORMOTIET, (personally, in retrospect!) seemed inappropriate!

Should you seek a second opinion on whether this ‘anomaly’ is coincidental, or not, User:ww, on 18 March 2009, gave a very intelligent response to these same issues here. In conclusion, I (yet again) am awaiting my most recent (16th year) of SECRET prosecutions under the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha - judicial system. Although my last offerings of a merry Christmas went unheeded, from me and my pall Jack Daniels, you, & my be-love-ed, Hollins sisters, have a happy new year. Stephen2nd (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What does "[ 1=R, 4=L, 2=R, 2=L, 3=R, 3=L, 5=R ]" mean and where does it come from? —Tamfang (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You previously wrote: "Set 'jumping' order of DERMOTT = [6 – 4 – 2 – 1 – 3 – 5 – 7]" If DERMOTT = 1234567 then 6421357 = TMEDROT. Inserting the N gives TMENDROT. Have you abandoned the 6421357 concept? —Tamfang (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

trivia
Vert, two bendlets &c was awarded (since you ask) [...]
 * (NO I DID NOT)
 * How then am I to understand the question "Who awarded you this, the king of the fairies?" ?

You invited me to "literally question anything" other than your oath.
 * (RETRACTED)
 * Okay, I missed that.

I asked whether that includes permission to question your sanity
 * (NO YOU DID NOT).
 * Mm, reasonable people may disagree on whether that's a fair paraphrase. At any rate, with the invitation withdrawn, I withdraw the question.

An argumentum ad hominem is of the form "N has a character flaw, and therefore N's statement is invalid"; this is rather like denying the antecedent. It is not argumentum ad hominem to say "N makes statements A B C, which are fallacious for reasons X Y Z, and incidentally from N's statements I infer X about N's character"; the inference is the other way 'round. If one were to say such a thing, N would be wise to examine the statements in question and ask Nself why they might lead to such an inference.


 * (THIS STATEMENT IS A SLANTED-AD HOMINEM, ie AGAIN, ATTACKING THE ARGUER, RATHER THAN HIS ARGUMENT, OR ITS CONCLUSION.)


 * Repeating it won't make it true.
 * If someone were to write
 * "Stephen is a drunkard and therefore the German ancestry of royal consorts is irrelevant to British royal cadency practice," or
 * "Stephen is ugly and therefore the white label does not make Mowbray prince of Wales," or
 * "Stephen cheats at cards and therefore the royal motto was not contrived to encrypt his name,"
 * ...that would be argumentum ad hominem. If I have ever said anything remotely similar, I hope someone will let me know.  I have argued that your claims on these points are implausible in themselves.  If afterward, frustrated by our mutual failures to communicate, I allow it to slip out that I may have a personal opinion (derived from your statements; how could it come from anything else?), my arguments on those matters do not retroactively become ad hominem.  Even if I had such an opinion before you'd ever written anything, and secretly had it in mind all the while I was arguing against your propositions, my private opinion does not make my overt arguments invalid (to say that it does would itself be argumentum ad hominem).


 * You have a right to say you've been insulted. But before flinging technical terms it's wise to know what they mean and do not mean — assuming, of course, that you care a fig for your own credibility.

Your situation hasn't been stated to me in any useful detail, on account of the Official Secrets Act, remember?
 * (CORRECT)

So I don't know what circumstances you mean.
 * (YES YOU DO)
 * How?


 * You asked me a question, which I've answered with civility and the truth. Your uncivil responses, comments and opinions &c, are of no concern to me whatsoever. Stephen2nd (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If I learn that something I wrote invites an unflattering and inaccurate inference about me (as has happened a few times), I hasten to clarify it, and adjust my future writing with that in mind. If you're too aggrieved to take such a warning, that's your privilege. —Tamfang (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)