Talk:Lawrence Washington (1602–1652)

Untitled

OK here's the article, after a couple of false-starts... No copyright or other policy-violations in this one, I think, altho if problems come up pls cure them.

This guy is really very interesting, I personally believe: he was Oxford-educated and a churchman, a victim of the Puritan Civil War who died in extreme poverty -- his wife and family had to live elsewhere, while he was still living, and he appears to have been buried in an unmarked "paupers' grave", like Mozart...

There were some ghosts on GWashington's family tree, and "The Reverend" may have been one of those. Much insight into GWashington's personality -- George was very careful with his accounts, and his money, a care which was much commented-upon by his peers -- might be derived from considering the trials & misfortunes & family aura cast by this college-indebted, riches-to-rags, impoverished ancestor.

--Kessler 00:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting?

Reading from a European perspective I find the contribution very interesting indeed, certainly something to put in an encyclopedia.

The American Revolution had vital support from enlightened circles in Europe.(see:Les Neuf Soeurs) The roots and evolution of the enlightenment in question are a matter of continuous research over here --see for instance Frances A.Yates "The Rosicrucian Enlightenment" (ref. Warburg Institute,Age of Enlightenment)-- To learn that the elder ancestor of George Washington was also an intelectual in his time has undoubtably a certain appeal and the present article may yet prove it's worth in reference. (Lunarian 12:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

He was a minor academic and a minor cleric, whose life (at least, according to the article) was unexceptional in every respect. The only thing notable about him was that he had a famous descendant. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, always look at the bright side... (Lunarian 19:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

At the risk of overstaying my welcome: Among my notes I rediscovered the reference which prompted me to "muse" about the present Lawrence. --Jack A.Goldstone:"East and West in the seventeenth century:political crisis in Stuart England, Ottoman Turkey, and Ming China" Society for comparative study of society and history ed. 1988 (that's all I wrote down at the time) What Jack said was that the 17th century was an age of structural revolutionary development that had its roots in a significant growth in population in both East and West.His paper describes the resulting crisis, and he points to the repercussions on the development of the intelectual elite: for example the numbers in family claiming nobility tripled whereas the number in common population doubled.(in Staffordshire -his example- from 200 families in 1583 to 1.100 in 1660).This made him conclude that the enormous extension of Universities and Educational establishments of that time reflected the intelectual effort of the upper class towards the preservation of their social status.So again, how insignificant is Lawrence Washington as an intelectual in his time? Was it already common to attend Brasenose? Was his dwindeling into insignificance a result of the crisis? How did the crisis affect Brasenose? Was he in anyway exemplary of its outcome? Above all did all this in any way provide the seed for the search for different horizons for which the family is rightly famous?

I sincerely hope Mel does not feel personally targetted, we have to much musical preference in common to fall out over --I almost said an insignificant character. Thumbs up for Jazz!

(Lunarian 12:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

While it was not common to attend Oxford or Cambridge, it wasn't a sign of any great distinction (note also that there was no expansion in the number of universities at that time – still just two in England – nor any remarkable expansion of Oxford and Cambridge). There's no reason to think of Washington as an intellectual; the article mentions no significant work, publications, etc. — he just followed a very ordinary path for people of his class. I'm not sure that attending Oxbridge has ever in itself been a sign of either intellectuality (rather the reverse during some periods) or distinction. It's also difficult to see why a minor clergyman's having been – like so many other minor clergymen – to Oxford should have influenced his great-great-grandson in any way...

Now I think I'll go and add another article on a really good album. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Right on! (for other users: on either distinction or non distinction of Oxford/Brasenose for the relevant period see also Giordano Bruno, Elias Ashmole -ref:Frances A.Yates) (Lunarian 08:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

Tring

Lawrence Washington 1602-1652 was not born in Tring.

Read carefully: This

Also

The Wiki article Tring has the following information: In 1682 the Mansion designed by Christopher Wren was build for Colonel Guy. A later tenant was Lawrence Washington, great grandfather of George Washington.

Need I say more, or can I leave it with: "Tring, indeed!"

As always your,

Lunarian (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is all very interesting, but let's put forward the kind of hypothesis that might lead one to this page. "George Washington was too well connected not to have Indian relatives, on his father's side as well as his mother's. A certain antiquarian claims that Delaware "Bostonian" renders back into English as "Washington," or as close as will serve. Therefore, George Washington's grandfather might have been a mixed-blood coastwise trader originally known as "Lawrence the Bostonian." Like I said, a hypothesis. Now we test it. There's a whole Wikipedia article about his putative father. How secure are the genealogical connections? The article indicates that there is no doubt that there was a Reverend Washington, and that the name was famous in England, but omits mention of Reverend Washington's wife and children. Which is okay. We don't know what we don't know. But why does it not make that point clearly and straightforwardly at the head of the article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.229.208 (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits

I'm not going to itemize here, but much of the material here is irrelevant - this is a biographical article. What his neighbors were doing, who they were, and sociopolitical issues the subject had no apparent nvolvement in are not appropriate topics. This is supposed to be an article dealing with facfts, and it is instead an article full of irrelevancy, tangential items, and suppositions with no proof. The tone is also inappropriate - "we do not "kindle our imaginations" with irelevant quotes. MSJapan (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodbeye !

I apologize for the rude intervention of MSJapan. I can not but allow him the respect he deserves, and hope people interested in the matter have been able to glean something usefull from prior states of the article.

Lunarian (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ps: now his second revert has mysteriously disappeared...Sigh !Lunarian (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it didn't "disappear"; you're trying to find an edit that didn't occur. Now, rather than attacking me, how about, since you seem to think this is "vandalism" because I didn't discuss the poor state of the article, you address my concerns noted above? The same goes for the other article as well. MSJapan (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very sorry about that.

I can not address your concerns. I am not a psychiatrist.

Your expertise will guide you.

Good luck

Lunarian (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Mention of mother-in-law but not wife?

There's a hint of a mother-in-law in the article, but maybe it's a sister-in-law.

In terms of the U.S. President, Lawrence's wife is at least as important as Lawrence is. Why no apparent mention of a name?

Robin Patterson (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)