Talk:William Rainsborowe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:William Rainborowe)

A few questions[edit]

Any ideas on these? Carcharoth 03:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those. I think you're right, and I was very aggravated, when I was writing, by the knowledge that we certainly had better links but that I would have to get another window open and search and prod to find it. Wikipedia has always had a problem of organization as great as the problem of content, and I wish our editors with a rage for order would aim their efforts at the systemic problems. The Higham Park is frustrating, because this is a "former crown" area, which means that it may have passed out of parlance and might not be a royal land after the Restoration (and yet might be, too). I think, however, that it would be the former, not the latter. I really wanted those buying and selling bits in, though, because I consider it possibly the most interesting detail. If you were a radical anti-royalist, a radical protestant, then what did you do after 1649? Well, you put your money where your mouth was and bought church lands and royal lands to intentionally complicate matters and intentionally "reclaim" the lands. If you were a Leveller, a Ranter, or, most particularly a Digger, you'd definitely do that. Geogre 10:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. I was pleaasantly suprised to find Putney Debates - that was a bit of a lucky find - but I enjoy digging and searching around. It is relatively easy to find things, but more use of redirects would help, as often an alternative spelling (red-link) can be turned blue in the twinkling of an eye. I have been reading up a little bit on the New England colonies, and I just want to check that you are linking to the right ones. The ones I mentioned above might be the wrong colonies!! Can you check your sources to be absolutely sure? It would be interesting to know what he got up to out in that Brave New World. Carcharoth 11:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically Thirteen Colonies and Province of Massachusetts Bay (which formed after our guy had died), though the reference to him dying in Boston suggests that he was in that area, and not the other areas shown here (note the dates). <sigh> More specific linking is all very well, but we have to be careful of not being more misleading than merely linking to the general Massachusetts article. I'll leave it up to you to decide. Carcharoth 11:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was frustrated, myself. I got his account solely from the DNB, and I suspect (just suspect) that this is one of those 2004 entries that hasn't been significantly re-researched from the 1898 ed. The reason is that the article has a very dismissive tone of (no kidding) "the colonies." When he was not in England, the DNB author regards him as entirely uninteresting. In fact, this would be a very, very interesting figure to research post-arrival. All that I found that I did not include is that both of his sisters married Winthrops.
Ok, well, that's a big, big, big name in "the colonies." Additionally, when he came over, he would have been extremely rich. Additionally, army and navy pay, even for officers, simply isn't high enough for his land speculations in England. All of this points to the idea that he had a significant income source in the New World, and this means that, going over to Mass., he simply had to be a big wheel. I'll see if I can pick up his story in the DAB (Dict. Am. Bio.). So, monetarily, he has to be a big stink in America. Add to that the radical, radical politics and religion, and you're looking at a probably huge figure in the colony. I do not know which one, exactly, but I suspect the Rhode Island contingent. Geogre 11:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Looking at John Winthrop, I see what you mean. You mention Rainborowe's radical religious views, and further up the talk page say he was a radical protestant, but there is nothing in the article at the moment explaining his religious views. Was he a Puritan, or another flavour of radical protestantism? Carcharoth 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo! From John Winthrop: "Winthrop then married his fourth wife, Martha Rainsborough, widow of Thomas Coytmore, sometime after 20 December 1647 and before the birth of their only child in 1648" - so he was the brother-in-law of Winthrop. That nearly made Rainborowe a relative of John Kerry, who is from the Tyndal-Winthrop side of that family. Carcharoth 12:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Leveller" would imply radical religious views. If that didn't, then Ranter sure would. The promotions in the New Model Army (esp. for taking on the Grandee colonel) would, too. The Levellers were... well, it's hard to explain exactly. It's a political movement, but it's so tied up in a religious view that it's almost a religion. I would suspect that he was an "Independent," which is an umbrella term at the time for the various congregational churches that would become today's Baptist church. What it means most particularly is that he was a congregationalist. Once you say that, it gets extremely difficult to outline a specific. Given the involvement with The Single Eye and its views (denial of sin, for example), you'd have to say that the guy was way, way, way, way out on the religious fringe. Utgard Loki 14:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for that. I was interested in your name, so I went to your page and I must say that: "Mainly, I hit the Random Article thingie over there. If the result is something I can improve, I do. If the result is something that doesn't say anything, I slap a CSD A1 template on it. If it's about the Aesir, I put moustaches (or shave them) on all the pictures" is just about the simplest, sanest, wiki-philosophy I've ever seen! :-) Carcharoth 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've tried to be explicit about the radicalism. I figure that the "Leveller" thing would say it all, but the DNB is silent on which radical religious movement he was part of. That suggests that he was an Independent. I have used a wiggly word, but I think it really is likely and not a guess. I'm also about to link in our John Winthrop. That's great researching, there. I wish I had gone to the DAB while on campus today, but I got a bad case of Friday. Geogre 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be very careful about how you characterize any of the basically Calvinist sectarians that emerged in England after 1600. For example, if they were still alive Christopher Hill and H.N. Brailsford would go ballistic at the suggestion the Levellers were rabidly anti-Catholic regicides. For example, leading Levellers (William Walwyn, John Lilburn and Richard Overton) tried to pursued the New Model Army from taking Cromwell's deal and invading Ireland; Lilburn opposed the execution of Charles I in 1649; Thomas Rainsborough was a leading Leveller in the New Model Army and wanted a the monarchy replaced with a republic based on general male suffrage. He was also the brother-in-law of John Winthrop, the frequent governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. John Winthrop, Roger Williams and William Walwyn knew each other in England and they recognized each other as godly men in the Calvinist tradition but politically there was a good deal difference between them.


You should always keep in mind that while the Massachusetts Bay Colony was not Plymouth Plantation, Connecticut or Rhode Island and Providence Plantation. They were all fundamentally Calvinist settlements and each represented a particular sect in the Calvinist tradition. Plymouth and Providence Plantation represented the Anabaptist and proto-Quaker movement that eventually became Unitarian and trancendentalist movement so the early 18th Century. Eastern Massachusetts and all of Connecticut were quite Puritan at the beginning but Massachusetts evolved into Brownian congregationalists of the sort that actually merged with the Unitarian/Quaker sects. Connecticut remained rather more Puritan. Nevertheless, if in your mind you think of the Puritans an intellectual dead end remarkable chiefly for their tendency to burn witches and make young girls wear red "A"s on the chests you are ignoring the fact that by 1700 Harvard College, which began as Puritan college, had become Unitarian and was the intellectual source of the Transcendental Movement of the early 19th Century, which was very much like the Romantic movement in Germany that gave us Schiller, Heine and Beethoven.

You should get a firm grasp on the idea of what a Royal Charter was and carefully consider whether or not the charter granted by Charles I to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630 was any different in character from the royal charters that had been granted to English cities and towns for centuries before 1600.

Finally, you should always keep in mind that the obvious ancestor to Thomas Paine's "Right of Man", the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights was the several "Agreements of the Free People of England" published by the Levellers in England between 1647 and 1649. The Levellers were predominantly Anabaptists, Congregationalist and Quakers. They were the same people as those living in the area commonly thought of as New England in 1650.71.232.217.115 (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophes[edit]

Apostrophes mark the plural of numbers. This is so that a number is not read as having the letter as part of it. For example, the difference between a 350is and a group of 350is and the difference between the 90s and the years of the many 90s is the apostrophe. This point of grammar has been unquestioned for generations. However, just recently some vulgarians, primarily in the business community and primarily in the United States, found themselves simply incapable of typing an apostrophe, and so they began doing their plural numbers and acronyms without the apostrophe. Some few style sheets began allowing this, but with a stupid rationalization -- "when unambiguous." Well, that's worse rather than better. At present, United States practice is split over the matter. Many rhetorics and handbooks still teach the apostrophe, and some do not. Some professional journalists require them (e.g. the New York Times), and some do not. Wikipedia has no rule on the subject, as it allows either one. I do not allow either one. I teach my own students to use the apostrophe, and I use the apostrophe, and I will not have these removed as "bad." Such blind and ignorant edit summaries betray profound intolerance and foolishness. Latin abbreviations are, according to most contemporary style sheets, not italicized if unambiguous. I regard "flourio" as still somewhat unknown in its expansion but "exampli gratia" as not. Therefore, one italicizes "fl." but not "e.g." One italicizes "inter al." but not "etc." Help, if you can, but do not meddle with acceptable and proper writing, please. Geogre 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get involved, but will note that "1630's" grates on me because I can't help thinking that the 1630 is a noun owning something. I'm too used to possessive apostrophes... Carcharoth 15:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I never go around and insert them, but begar if I'm going to have people "correct" the "mistake" of obeying grammatical rules by employing them. The apostrophe indicates the loss of a letter. Hypothetically (see his genitive) they were inserted as possessives in English because grammarians falsely believed that all genitives had been "his" or "es." Hence the possessive usage of the apostrophe is, in fact, still supposed to indicate a contraction. In the case of plural numbers, it would be "[all number] + s" with the apostrophe eliding each number. Geogre 15:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have a rule on it, and it is not allowed. Per the Manual of Style, which is an official guideline, as I quote,

  • Do not use an apostrophe to indicate a decade:
    • Incorrect: 1970's
    • Correct: 1970s

It later says

  • Osmund (fl. 760–772)

Without italics. I wonder why you support the ambiguity issue for italics, but not for the apostrophe. You say that it has only more recently been adopted. However recent it is, you should learn to adapt to changes. One can't stick with only what was known or used in the '50s!! I see that you have given a few sources supporting yourself, but I can find many more against the apostrophe; here are a few reliable links against the apostrophe: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Note that a decade is considered a plural. I can give more if you want.

I don't particularly mind the italics, but the apostrophes must go. I will now remove them from the article, as the Manual of Style says they should be. Reywas92Talk 16:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> - come on guys! I can be as pedantic as the next person, but why not spend time looking into the exciting history of puritan colonies, instead of quibbling over style issues? Carcharoth 17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though if you insist, try here for "the jury's still out on apostrophizing decade names". Carcharoth 17:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a more relaxed viewpoint is here. The point about "I like 1980's' music" is valid, though I tend to rewrite in cases like that to say "I like music from the 1980s". Another example would be: "The fashion of the 1930's was to dress in a silly way" - or "The 1930s fashion was to dress in a silly way". Note the use of adjectival nouns, as opposed to possessive apostrophes... Carcharoth 17:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More relevant stuff[edit]

Looking here, I found this:

"In 1641 (John) Humphrey was apppointed governor of Providence Island, but his plans to emigrate were disrupted when the colony fell to the Spanish. The admiral of the fleet was Hugh Peter's brother Benjamin. The vice admiral was the commissioner Thomas Rainsborough, the later Leveller; Rainsborough's brother William, also involved in the voyage, had lived in Charlestown, Massachusetts, before the Civil War. The rear admiral was Maurice Thomson's brother Robert, a resident of Boston, Massachusetts during the 1630s." (Brenner)

The "Brenner" appears to be "Brenner's Merchants and Revolutions- J. R. Woodhead, The Rulers of London, 1660-1689" - I wonder if it is easy to get hold of a copy of that! I think on the basis of that, we can add Charlestown, Massachusetts to the article - ironic really, for someone who had a signet ring with Charles I's severed head on it! Carcharoth 15:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, quite, but most of Charleston would find itself filled with anti-royalists, as well (for a while), and Maryland's early settlers were not Roman Catholics (as myth has it) but, mainly, dissenters. (See Daniel Defoe's pro-emigration propaganda, Moll Flanders.) This explains the cryptic "and he took part in the campaign against the Spanish" in the DNB. I had left that out, because, honestly, who can tell which campaign against the Spanish a DNB author means? Geogre 15:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the article. Geogre 15:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was trying to find out what this Woodhead "The Rulers of London" thing is, and found this. and searched for "willaim rainborowe" and found the following:
  • "A Proviso was tendered to this Bill, in these Words; "Provided also, that this Act, or anything therein contained, do not extend to the Taking away of the Sum of Three thousand Pounds, formerly conferred by the Parliament upon Margarett Rainborowe, the Widow of Colonel Thomas Rainborowe, deceased, and upon his Son Wm. Rainborowe, to be so settled out of the Estate of Richard Thornhill, of Olentight in the County of Kent, Esquire, now ordered to be sold; but that it may be lawful for the said Margarett, before any Disposal of any Part of the Estate, to purchase so much thereof, or of the Estate of any other Delinquent, hereby appointed to be sold, as shall amount to the said Sum of Three thousand Pounds, according to the Rate of Ten Years Purchase, for Lands in Possession, and for Lands in Reversion proportionably; allowing the said Three thousand Pounds, upon the said Purchase, as ready Money: And the Trustees and Contractors therein named are hereby authorized and required to contract with, and assure unto, the said Margarett, to the Use of her the said Margarett, and her Heirs for ever, Lands, Tenements, and Hereditaments, out of the said Estate, to the Value of Two thousand Pounds, at the Rate aforesaid, for and towards the Payment of the Debts of the said Colonel Thomas Rainborowe; and likewise to contract with, and convey and assure unto, the said Margaret Rainborowe, to the Use of her said Son Wm. Rainborowe, and the Heirs of his Body, Lands, Tenements, and Hereditaments, out of the said Estate, at the Rate aforesaid, to the Value of One thousand Pounds: And, in case it shall happen, that the said William Rainborowe shall die without any Heirs of his Body lawfully begotten; then the said Lands, and Tenements, and Hereditaments, to be to the Use of the said Margarett Rainborowe, and her Heirs for ever: And the Trustees and Contractors therein named are hereby authorized and required to accept of the Discharge of the said Margarett Rainborowe, under her Hand and Seal, in full Satisfaction for Three thousand Pounds:" Which was this Day read the First and Second time; and, upon the Question, assented unto; and ordered to be Part of the Bill." (1651) [9] (That's William's brother's family being looked after, then)
  • "A Letter from Colonel Rainborowe and Colonel Fleetewood, of 26 Aprilis 1646, was this Day read; and was, concerning the Delivery of Woodstock Manor into the Hands of the Parliament; and concerning some Propositions, made by the Earl of Southampton to the said Colonel Rainborowe and Colonel Fleetewood, concerning the King." [10] (Thomas faithfully carrying out the war against the Royalists)
The others were similarly refereces to Thomas, not William. The first one was to William, but the son of Thomas, not the brother. Carcharoth 15:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting, and we should unleash one of our lawyers on it, just to see how much pain they cause historians. So far as I can tease it out, this is about Thomas's murder. His wife, Margaret, is required to sell her land (valued at 3K) that Parliament had given to Thomas. She is then allowed to buy it back up to 2/3rds of it for 10 year increments, so long as the amount she gets isn't valued at over 2K. The sale price goes solely to Thomas's creditors.
  • In other words, it's Parliament trying to help her discharge her dead husband's debts while still letting her own the very same land that's going to be sold, if she can come up with the money by some other means. Either that or he had only 1,000 pounds of debt, but the land is worth 3,000 and is going to be sold in total and bought back to the tune of 2,000.
  • The rest is the condition of who gets the land if William Jr. doesn't have children. I.e. it's "rented," but it's theirs, and no one else gets first claim as long as the family remains intact and keeps buying it (by rents) every 10 years. Geogre 19:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish connection[edit]

I was looking into the Spanish connection, and found this book on Providence Island, "the other Puritan colony". Rather distressingly, our article on Providence Island fails to mention its brief history as an English colony. I'm off to remedy that and then link the Rainsborowe brothers to that island and the conflict with the Spanish. Carcharoth 15:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review what I added to San Andrés y Providencia Department#History? I'm afraid I may have plaigiarised the source a bit, though I rewrote it slightly I couldn't resist the comparison to New England! Carcharoth 16:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison is apt. If I were to investigate and write about it, I'd conclude that the absence of a Cotton Mather is important. Additionally, though, the hardship and isolation of New England meant the ability to build a happy little us & them world. The relative (relative) little money to be made in farming there, the absence of gold, and the distance to the nearest supplies of gold and furs, meant that there wasn't so much temptation to start pirating. The topographical explanation of the US has long held that the south had slaves because it needed them, because it ran on plantation -- massive farms with labor-intensive crops and such harsh conditions that no free worker would volunteer -- while the north did not because its soil and climate forbade tobacco and cotton and therefore did not need indentured or enslaved workers. Well, you go off Nicaragua, and you're right in sugar cane, tobacco, and cotton territory, where fortunes can be made easily, and the Spanish treasure ships sail right past you. What's a puritan to do? Geogre 19:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong town[edit]

Spotted at article about Jamestown and remembered this article. But I had the wrong town. He ended up in Charlestown. Oh well. Here is the article anyway. Carcharoth 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate name[edit]

In the beginning it states that his name could be William Rainsborowe *or* Rainborowe, without the s. There is a few that have it without the 's' and most with the 's'. Should we keep it consistent with the 's', because that is the one in the title? 20pargyle (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Rainsborowe&oldid=1209951369"