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

Lewis created the database.

Thanks for clarify whose death was being talked about, Patricia. I've just deleted my comment to avoid any unnecessary confusion or distress from my misunderstanding.

Theresa, thanks for the kinds words.

I'm sorry for the mistake about Charles Poley being dead. I thought I'd heard that he was.

Another thing I didn't know is that Our Royal, Titled, Noble, and Commoner Ancestors is Marlyn Lewis' project. His is certainly a familiar and name in the genealogy community. I've wondered from time to time what happened to him. Now I know.

Is it possible Lewis and Poley are using the same database? I suppose it it, although in that case I'd be very surprised that the two of them aren't doing an co-op marketing. I would think Lewis would be promoting Poley's book on his website, and Poley's book ought to be trumpeting a connection to "Marlyn Lewis, the author of The Ancestry of Elizabeth of York".

That, plus the fact Marlyn Lewis has already left a common on Amazon objecting to the use of his material.

They are not using the same database. Marlyn Lewis created that database.

Richard,

Yes, I am in contact with Mrs. Poley, who is luckily, not yet, a widow.
But she did play, as mentioned, a great part in the culmination of the book, while her husband was in and out of various hospitals, all over the United States, for multiple (crass) surgical procedures and treatments... and for the most part, was/is completely incapacitated and undergoing further of same.
As you can imagine, though, the stress of these discussions surrounding the book, as well as, the main burdons this couple currently has to endure, with the prognosis, not being the best of anything... I myself, will be the last person, to suggest, they simply give up.

What I have, however suggested is, that they revise the Book for future "on demand printings". (this is why the book is so expensive in print, for those unfamiliar with this "on demand" process, each book is individually printed, upon order, but this also, allows for impromptu editing, before each newly printed version. And just by the way, there is also a kindle version of the book, which only costs like 20$, as there is no printing involved or delivery charges.)

As already mentioned, I am fully convinced there has been no foul- play or plagiarism involved. At the very least, none intentional. And believe, both researchers, Lewis and Poley, dipped into the same cookie jar, for some of their information.

I would be very appreciative, as would the author, if this thread would finally and permanently, be put to rest, for the sake of the family, fighting for their lives and livelihood, at the moment.
And I will pursue corrections and editing, with the author. And most definitely, not to be excluded, their "editing team", which is actually, soley responsible for any typos and misspellings, which may not have been associated with the original documents, original language preservation, in reprint, should this be the case.

And well, one thing of which I am most certain of is, I will never ever, ever promote anything, which I did not author and produce my very own self, anywhere, ever again. So, sleep easy folks and let's just get on with our precious lives and possibly undertake something, which will be with absolute certainty, more productive and more fulfilling, as this drudge.

Thank you all, for your participation and the portions of your time and energies (and in some cases, compassion) invested, herein. I am in the utmost, grateful for this experience, having been privileged to take part in this has taught me yet another, difficult lesson, which I will secretly, cherish and hold close to my heart, in future.

xoxoxoTheresa Renée

I should like to point out that *everything* to do with the production and publication of the Henry I book was solely the work of Mr & Mrs Poley.

NO "editing team" was involved at any stage, and it is the author/s themselves who are responsible for any typos and misspellings, etc. within the book.

Janice Brown agree. Just drop the subject. I don't know who is right here just that some people are way too quick to judge with out fact checking first.. Just as much as some people like to play the guility until proven innocent card and are responsible for groups and letting trouble makers back in against the wishes of others. That your responsible for but we'll discuss that else where..

I know this will sound preachy, but I don't think it can be emphasized enough --

Anyone who lives long enough can say they've been researching genealogy for some extraordinary number of years, but that doesn't mean much.

I've been actively, maybe even obsessively, working on medieval and royal noble lines for more than 45 years. And what does that mean? Nothing at all. I've seen a lot, read a lot, done some original research, written a few articles, corresponded with experts, and coached beginners.

I could probably take one of my databases, do 3 months of clean up, and publish it as a book. And that book would have NO VALUE to anyone. Why? Because 98 percent of what I have is just a re-hash and refinement of other people's work.

I understand and recognize (as Theresa says above) that "not everyone has the luxury of chasing windmills".

For anyone with royal ancestry who just wants a convenient reference, the obvious choice is Frederick Lewis Weis et al., Ancestral Roots (8th edition). It's the classic in the field. Even if you're not descended from that small circle of American immigrants with proven royal ancestry, you'll get all you need about your royal ancestors, plus the assurance that the lines have been vetted, and re-vetted, and updated over and over by the best experts. It won't take you over the edge into fantasy-land. You can get it for $38 on Amazon.

Another good choice, but much pricier is Gary Boyd Roberts, Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants to the American Colonies (2008). Another classic. $75 on Amazon.

Then, if you're willing to go higher, go with Douglas Richardson. He has Plantagenet Ancestry ($165), Magna Carta Ancestry ($165), and Royal Ancestry ($190). All very solid, decent books.

Maybe someone else has other "must have" recommendations, but these are mine. They're the core of any royal genealogy library.

Theresa - the "editing team" had nothing to do with this Henry book. If you continue to spread that kind of information, you may face a libel charge.

patrica do I need to ask charles to dump you from the group too?

Michael, you said:

> ok can we close this now.. And people wonder why I perfer to research my family alone? It's cause we can never get along with out being total douchbags about everything...

> patrica do I need to ask charles to dump you from the group too?

Michael. Please stop. You do not need to spend so much time trying to close threads and stop discussion. If you are uncomfortable, just stop following.

I can see why you want to see the best in the Poleys, Theresa, by suggesting both Lewis and Poley copied the same database. And it's a credit to you that you are sticking by your friends through this. But I don't think it can be true as Lewis has publicly accused Poley of plagiarism in a review on Amazon. Even if it were the case that they're using a common database, it's still rather disingenuous to do this without saying that it's not your original work.

I'd also note that the Internet Archive makes it clear how the text on Lewis's website has evolved since 2011 into it's current form, so it's pretty clear it's not Lewis that's copied it from the Poleys.

I gives me no pleasure to make the accusation. Before the start of the week I'd never heard of the Poleys, and I have no reason to wish them ill, especially at what is clearly a very difficult time for them. I much prefer to see good in people, and for a moment earlier this evening I was genuinely pleased when I thought it had all been a terrible misunderstanding. But the misunderstanding had been mine, and regrettably my accusation of plagiarism stands.

All I think remains to be said is that if anyone has influence with the Poleys, please try to get them to withdraw the book, even if it's done without explanation. That must surely be in their best interests, rather than trying to brazen it out and risk getting sued by Lewis.

The bottom line, Michael, is that a man, Marlyn Lewis, who has spent his life researching medieval genealogy, is having his life's work pirated.
I'm stunned that you don't understand what plagiarism is, theft, in this case theft of intellectual property. You can bully me and have me blocked but that doesn't change the fact that a grave injustice is being done to Marlyn Lewis.
a man who has freely shared his site with the world.

Does anyone know if Marlyn Lewis has reported the copyright violation to Amazon? The procedure seems simple enough:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nod...

Patricia, you may have misread something, somehow in my comment... I said,
The editing team is soley responsible for typos and spelling errors... or is this not the exact job description of an "editing team" and I have misinterpreted their line of work?
Quote from the author, this afternoon... "Also, I had 4 people spend 10 months editing the book."
If that is the case, and there are still, so many noted "typos" and "misspellings", I'd say, these editing persons have completely discredited themselves, in this field. Period.
I am absolutely aghast at your lightening willingness to literally, cry, "lawsuit" in my direction for pointing out that an editing team's duty is... uuhhh duuuhhh... EDITING!!
*scratches head and wonders, in which Roman Arena, I've just been thrown to the lions in, here?*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard, though, I am certain, that Marlyn Lewis was set into panic that his work was being plagiated, at your suggestion, through your current correspondence with him directly... and this, I am compelled to strongly reiterate, has yet to be proven, I do appreciate you understanding my position as a third party innocent, to any and all of the accompanying intrigue and drama, surrounding this possible malheur. As well as, your ability to sympathize and show gracious compassion with the honestly nightmarish situation, the Poleys are forced to deal with, currently... regarding Chuck's health. Not to mention the aggravation of this, through this publication.
And I must note that, although, the internet archive of Lewis' website may indeed, hold record of said developments, (since 2011), there is nothing presented yet, which shows without a shadow of a doubt, that the entire Poley book is derived therefrom. As well as, that all of the negative opinions expressed here, have been based upon a three page preview and not yet, on the book, in its entirety, as far as I could evaluate.
And didn't you yourself mention, that 2/3rds of the sources are Douglas Richardson? If that is the case, how on Earth can it all be stolen directly from Lewis? #LogicEvokesNotedDiscrepanciesInThisLineOfDiscussion

And I again, request that an admin/curator, please, put this thread, now that Lewis and Poley will surely, have direct communication through the Amazon post... and all can rest assured that this will likely, be persued, be put to rest, permanently and irrevocably.

Thank you.

Justin,
Absolutely wonderful suggestions, for my future genealogical library! Highly appreciated and will be noted.
Thank you!

Theresa, the "editing team" did not work on the Henry I book, which is the book under discussion here

As both Patricia and I have already said, the "editing team" had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Henry I book.

I would also add that the "editing team" was completely unaware of that book until its publication was announced by Chuck on 10 December 2014.

Your quote "I had 4 people spend 10 months editing the book" is about a *completely different* project, which is NOT the topic under discussion here.

I notice she published 74 books in December and so far in January. That would have been enough to keep an editing team busy ;)

My "editing team" quote was directly from Chuck and the topic was this book, the Henry book, which I had discussed this afternoon, with Chuck, due to exactly this thread here on the Henry book.
Sooooo,
it may be very possible, that he's mixed up, due to the heavy tranquilizers they are giving him to endure the radiation and chemos... but that is what he answered me, after I had messaged him the 2 comments from Richard, from yesterday and earlier this afternoon, (in reference to his first and his second comment in this thread.), in the hopes that I could get some straight answers, which would clear up some of this muck.

I do not make stuff up (except for pop songs) and I do not lie... and I do not believe, Chuck intentionally, lied to me, either.
I am guessing, as sad as this is, that the tranquilizers and treatments, are influencing his abilities, currently and again, excuse myself, from this thread... and that I ever started it... as I honestly, do have better and more wonderful things to do, with my life.

Thank you and wishing you all a peaceful night.

Theresa, there is obviously some confusion (for whatever reason), but I assure you that the "editing team" was NOT involved in the Henry I book, NOR in any of the numerous 'stand-alone' titles published subsequently.

I should also like to point out the term "editing team" is rather a misnomer as the primary role of its volunteer members was to *check lines of descent and sources* that had been entered in a large community tree by various individuals in a group of which you are a member. Each of those contributors was responsible for the accuracy in the content of his/her entries, so correcting any 'typos' and other errors that were subsequently noticed in the tree was very much a secondary role for the team.

But.I reiterate, the team had absolutely NO involvement in the Henry I book.

Hi Janice,

I am aware of the other group and the tree and subsequent book- series, but here he speaks of the book. Not the series of books. So I understood, the book.
(BTW- I did not fill out my lineages there, Chuck did... I simply forwarded these to him, almost, a year ago.. I pray, they are alright.)

Just so you know, I am also, more than familiar with the "normal" authoring, editing and publishing process, not only through my own musical works, but also, because my adoptive Mother, has written and published, several educational books, of which I have assisted on, participated in or simply been an observer of their creation from, spawning idea to coffee table/desk- top, as well as, that I know other persons who work in "normal" "editing teams" for "classic" publishing companies. I am therefore, guilty for presuming, the motions asserted for this book or the other series or any book, by any author, would have been same.

What is being executed in todays "disposable society", is not what I had envisioned, when I heard the description, "editing team", simply because I understand something rather completely professional, under this term.

Janice & Justin, I had absolutely no idea, that there were all of these little books, as well.

Quite surprised and I wonder, now, what's going on, but will leave my curiosity unsatisfied and simply, carry on, as usual. This is out of my hands and I am obviously, not capable of explaining or limiting damages on something, of which I had no knowledge or control of, in the first place.

All simply a sad state... and I will cordially respond, yes, but I am simply "turned- off" by this entire mess and I would love to carry on, with my life, as I knew it, before this thread.

Wish you a wonderful Wednesday.

My comments were based on more than just three pages, and every page I read was a verbatim copy from Marlyn Lewis's website, though it's true I haven't read the whole book or even the majority of it. But even had only the first three pages been copied, it's still plagiarism, still unethical, and still an infringement of Lewis's copyright.

And, yes, I did say that two-thirds of Poley's citations are to Richardson. How is that relevant to whether or not it's plagiarised? Two-thirds of Lewis's citations are also to Richardson, and the identical positioning, spelling and numbering of the citations is some of the more compelling evidence that these pages have been copied verbatim from Lewis's site.

From this and the many other similarities, it is incontrovertible that Poley's book contains (at least) large parts copied verbatim from Lewis. The only open question is whether this is a wilful deceit or merely gross incompetence. Was it a deliberate attempt to usurp another researcher's work for profit? Or in their rush to get seventy-plus titles out in the last month-and-a-half -- a rate of more than one book a day -- did they fail to spot that large amounts of copyright material had been included? Either way, I'm afraid it really doesn't look good for the Poleys.

Hello Richard,

Well, I've got my money on an unintentional oversight of accessing various Data Bases saved for reference in a husband's hard drive, accidentally, submitted by the author's wife, who apparently, authored children's books, until this past December and who is not 100% familiar with all aspects of Chuck's research and data bases, having been just newly married for a year, now.

My reference to 2/3rds Richardson, was merely presented, because... if they BOTH utilized exactly the same work(s)/references... there can be no talk of plagiarism.
And I am not excusing or condoning this apparent and obvious faux pas, but more accurately, can therefore, only a discussion of format and organization, which was renderd by Lewis, for his site and its archives, be presented when, after all, neither of them (Lewis, nor Poley) authored Douglas Richardson's works, except for Douglas Richardson.
So, to speak of "Lewis' work", in this case, encompasses more precisely, the labour of cataloging, than authoring and one cannot "steal" from another, what they didn't author, in the first place.
As I had mentioned before, I had been told (at least by Chuck, who I am no longer certain, is acting in his full capacity, as I have previously explained.) that he had personal contact with Richardson as well as, Richardson's blessings to utilize his work.

I have taken the necessary measures to inform Chuck of each and every detail of these discrepancies and this discussion and hope and pray, that an amiable and agreeable end will come of all of this, very soon.

And again, thank you, for your attention and thorough researching, into these circumstances, as well as, your ability to view the various facets of a gem and attend a debate, without unnecessarily causing more harm, than good.

And to you too, a wonderful Wednesday.

Theresa, I think there might be some misunderstanding here about the nature of copyright. You've said several times that "they BOTH utilized exactly the same work(s)/references... there can be no talk of plagiarism."

But that's not how it works. Information cannot be copyright. The copyright comes from creating a work that presents the information. It's the creative result that is copyrighted not the information.

So, Doug Richardson has a copyright on his books because they organize and present information in a particular way that is unique to him, even though it is often the same information many other people have. Lewis and Poley can use Richardson's information but they infringe his copyright if they just copy his work without creating a new presentation. Similarly, the Poleys would infringe Lewis' copyright if they just just copy and paste from his website.

It's irrelevant that both of them got information from Richardson, and also irrelevant whether Richardson blesses their enterprise.

This might seem like an odd and meaningless distinction, but think it through -- none of us would photocopy one of Richardson's books and think we could sell the photocopy as our own work, but that's what the Poleys seem to have done with Lewis' work.

Some of us old-timers remember a problem many years ago over Marlene Eilers' book Queen Victoria's Descendants. She took the time to research every living descendant. That was something that hadn't been done before, or if it had, it wasn't information that was publicly available.

Not long after she published, some guy put it all the names and dates into a database and made it available free online. She was heartbroken, but of course there was nothing she could do. The book was copyrighted but not the information in it.

Of course, copying her information to a database did not include the right to publish the photos in the book, nor the right to copy and paste the biographies she had written. So, the book still had value to potential buyers. She just didn't have a monopoly on the data.

This is the last thing, I am going to post, in regards to this whole situation... As I have mentioned, I am a third party innocent bystander and a friend (and WHO would've thought, Cousin of the author and his wife. But I am also, Justin and Janice' Cousin, too. ;-) ).. so, I am going to give way and just leave it, to them.

I had a lengthy messaging session with Chuck, who is currently 2 hours away from home in the hospital getting chemo and radiation treatments... since before the New Year and scheduled for quite some time into the future... with limited internet access and without his own personal data bases.

Needless to say, he's supposed to be avoiding stress. Dr.'s orders... but I deemed this accute conflict of interest to be ernst enough, to necessitate being looked at immediately and more closely and forced it upon him, against my inner voice saying, "just leave the poor guy alone."

He assured me, that I (and you guys) are simply Not Correct in the assumption, that the listings and Reference Tags as seen on Lewis' site are Lewis' exclusive and unique creation and that they (the Poleys) most certainly did NOT copy and paste anything from Lewis' site and that the (S4) references, author and title entry and order discrepancies and the whole lot etc. are exactly the same labels of the references which stand in the actual books, authored by others (Not Lewis and Not Poley) and that he owns most of these books himself... and has been allowed to research and reference, into those which he does not own personally, extensively... and that it is clear to him, that Lewis' apparently, utilized the exact same Indexing and Reference Systems, as well as the source Labeling, from exactly These Same Books in their Original Format, but simply digitalized it, (this function is better known as, "data entry" and has nothing to do with copyrights or intellectual property... ), exactly, as it was in the very same books, just as Poley has simply printed it, exactly as it was from these books, to his, as well.

So, the verbatim duplicates of the information, including the reference numbers, errors and discrepancies, on both Lewis' site and Poley's book, are in fact due to the fact, (from what, I have been told), that this is also, exactly the way it stands, in the original books of reference and research, which both used, to support their individual pieces of work... Chuck's book and Lewis' website.

He will personally, make contact with Lewis, (who he didn't know.) per email and hopes to clear up any and all misunderstandings, which may abound, due to Richards notifying Lewis and setting him into panic, that his work was being purportedly "stolen"...
and I am hoping, that will be that, then.

I personally, find it is not a wonder, that two people, utilizing the exact same reference works, to research many of the exact same lineages, for the exact same length of time (25 years), also, come up with the exact same results... in some cases, especially, when quoting at extensive lengths, source materials, all the way down to the source materials, own index reference key. As Justin had mentioned, even his own life's genealogical work of 45 years, would be rehashed, reiterated, refuctioned bits of the same thing which has been found and repeated, repeatedly.
Again, no one has analyzed the entire book, but only a preview of it, to date.

I will try and explain it, from what I know, as it is my profession.
Take a song book, for sample... let's say, Rock songs of the 80's... there are numerous publishings of these... And of course those who publish them did not author and produce all of the songs, listed within. They are also, mere compilations.
Most of the various versions of books with this title, will share not only the same top 40 pick on song titles and lyrics and music notes, but also, the same book title!!! Differentiating themselves only with a slight variation, such as, "McGuire's Rock Songs of the 80's" or "Rock Songs of the 80's- The Hits" or "Dick Clark's Rock Songs of the 80's" of "Best Rock Songs of the 80's"
and/or the variation on the publishing company name and publishing year... etc.
They all will reference the very same composers and lyricists and they all will accredit the exact same music production and distribution labels/companies which originally released these songs, in the exact same format and style, unless someone makes a mistake, all of these references, will also, be exactly verbatim, just as it was listed in the original versions of the original data of the original licenses for each song in each book.
And they all must pay a licensing fee to said, label or author and/or composer, providing this has not been previously "waived", for whatever reason. (Songs over 70 and in some cases 100 years old, are considered classics and license free, which is why you'll see so many of these being rehashed for profit, in publications)
My point is, it will be the exact identical lyrics (yes, even with typos or excluded words or extra words, just as it was entered to the original company from the original artist, for the original song text), the exact identical notes, accents, measures, codas and original keys, as well as, identical references... to the original companies, Logos and distributors, providing their licensing contract has not "run out" or been transferred, at some point, to another. And in some cases licensing residual fees, to the lent name on the cover. (As in, The Dick Clark example) unless, this has also been "Waivered" due to "other" contracting agreements between, Clark, the book publisher and Clark's company (for example, ABC or CBS)... etc. etc.

Whatever the case, I recommend that all involved in this thread, now, simply allow those who are directly involved... (Poley and Lewis) to figure it out... hhhmmm?
And stop playing devil's advocate, between the two and every one else, who can read.

Whatever the outcome, it is for them to figure out and not for us.

Theresa,

I have been following this thread for awhile and did not want to post here. But, now I feel I must post to help you open your eyes and open you mind to the fact that the Poley’s have taken free information available online and are now making a profit from Marlyn Lewis’s work. You have been manipulated into believing all the poor excuses the Poley’s has been feeding you.

I truly hope you will follow the guidance I have provided below and I hope you take the time to compare "Our Royal, Titled, Noble, and Commoner Ancestors & Cousins" Website to Poley’s book. It’s unethical and immoral to take someone’s work and claim it as your own work. If Poley had been working on this for 25 years there would be a different style of writing as we didn't have internet 25 years ago. Two people did not utilize the exact same reference works. Poley utilized Lewis’s work, word for word.

I will place this in steps and perhaps you will understand the controversy of why everyone is lead to believe that the Poley’s copied and pasted from "Our Royal, Titled, Noble, and Commoner Ancestors & Cousins" Website. You can compare what is at the website to what is in Poley’s book at Amazon.

Steps:
1. Google "Our Royal, Titled, Noble, and Commoner Ancestors & Cousins" Website, click on the link
2. Go to the search box
3. For the first name field enter, Henry I
4. For the surname field enter, Normandy
5. Search for or scroll down until you see the name “Henry I, King of England, Duke of Normandy”, click on this link
6. Also, open the kindle preview of Poley’s book on Amazon. Place these webpages side-by-side for a comparison.

While viewing Henry I’s webpage at ORTN, you should notice many similarities that should stand out.
1. Charts named “Some Descendants of Charlemagne (#1) and (#2), these are links to charts within the website. Why would Poley put links to charts from a website in his book??? You can’t click on a link in a book. I count at least 20 instances of this link in the kindle preview. There are no charts labeled Some Descendants of Charlemagne (#1)’ in Poley’s book
2. Compare the first paragraph text from the website to the first paragraph in Poley’s book, it is exactly the same including the reference numbers (superscript) except for one noticeable difference, the missed spaces between words in Poley’s book. When Poley copied/pasted from the website into the note field in his Ancestry tree, ancestry lost all the formatting, including spaces between words and paragraphs. That’s why you see mashed up words in the book like “Matilda ofFlanders”.
3. Notice the footnote numbers (superscript) within the paragraph on the website, these numbers will correspond to the source/reference numbers below in the Citations Area of the website.
4. Poley also has these footnote numbers (not superscript, but mashed up with another word) within his paragraphs but they don’t reference to anything, due to the fact that when copied/pasted the website into his tree, ancestry lost all the formatting i.e. 1, 2, 3, etc. in the Citations Section.

Next, scroll down and look at the family makeup for Henry and all his kids.
1. The website clearly has a separation (blank row) between each family, and some names also contain footnote numbers (superscript) which correspond to the Citations Section below.
2. When Poley copied/pasted into his tree, ancestry lost all the formatting i.e 1, 2, 3, etc. in the Citations Section. but retained [S] reference in the Poley book. Ask Poley what exactly does the [S]’s refer to in his book and where do we find the list of sources that all [S]’s refer to. What is the point of having all [S]’s in the book? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

Look ~ Listen ~ Learn

I'm sorry, Theresa, but you're quite wrong if you think two people using the same references for a similar length of time will produce identical work. Yes, they might produce similar work, even very similar, but this is identical, even down to the punctuation. Take for example the so-called Oxford comma: that's the use of a comma (or semicolon) before the word "and" in a list. Both Lewis and Poley are inconsistent on whether they use an Oxford comma. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. And they both do it identically. That is certain evidence of copying.

Anyway ... out of morbid curiosity, I kept paging through the book until I found something that wasn't copied from Lewis's work. And, yes, there is eventually content that isn't copied from Lewis, but not until the seventh generation when I reached the entry for Gorm "the Old". After the material copied from Lewis, I found a long section of narrative text. In fact, a verbatim copy of the version of the Wikipedia article on Gorm that was existed between 18th and 21st July 2015. Further on there are more Wikipedia articles, for example for Constantine "the Great".

This is quite entertaining, because Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licence. This licence says, inter alia, that anyone is free to make derivative works based on the Wikipedia content, but that any such derivative work must be licensed under a compatible licence. Poley's book is now a derivative work, and therefore anyone may distribute copies for of it free. Of course that's invalidated by the other copyright infringement that's happened, but it amused me nonetheless.

I kept looking at pages at random for a while longer but failed to find anything that wasn't copied from either Lewis or Wikipedia. I still haven't looked at the whole book and don't plan to do so, but if contains any original content, there's not much of it and it's well hidden.

You can use info from other reference books but you can not take credit for it if you put together another book. First all you don't say you wrote the book you say you compiled the info for the book and then you credit the original compiler and hopefully put the info in your own words.