I think it's quality far more than quantity which matters. Being in several different published genealogies counts for little - they copy from each other. Being in one will or IPM can be far more useful than half a dozen of the former (although of course terms like cousin or nephew etc can be vague, and 'in-law' if often omitted). Teresa On 22/05/2016 08:00, [email protected] wrote: > Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 08:21:22 +0100 > From: Ruth<[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DEV] Charlemagne 742 > To: Len Heyward<[email protected]>,[email protected] > Message-ID:<[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed > > Perhaps I should clarify - by "county histories" I am not referring to > those written by antiquarians, who often had their own agenda and were > writing for a specific audience. I normally look to British History > Online (www.british-history.ac.uk) as they tend to quote the Victoria > County History which in turn cites reliable sources. It is well known > that the Heralds' Visitations are riddled with inaccuracies, as the > later descents may include certain embellishments to enhance a "nouveau > riche" family's past. > > For that reason, it is desirable wherever possible to find more than one > source for a "fact" before accepting it as such. > > Ruth