Susan There's a lot of wishful thinking about ancestors out there. In my opinion genetics is likely to give more productive results working backwards from living individuals rather than forwards from a putative, if illustrious person who happens to have had a similar name. The site claims that Richard Barry, 6th Earl of Barrymore belonged to "one of the most important Anglo-Irish families." For English people Barry is a short form of Bartholomew. For people in the north of Ireland the (made-up) name Barry's is associated with an amusement park in Portrush. For the Welsh it is the name of a town in Glamorgan. For the French it is the name of Louis XV's pimp/procurer Jean- Baptiste du Barry, nicknamed le roué, whose wife Madame du Barry was guillotined in the Revolution. For Italians Bari is a town in Apulia. Etc. Etc. People's names can have a multitude of origins and it seems better to let sleeping dogs lie. Digging up the dead is the last resort of the desperate. Malcolm. On 14 Jun 2014, at 20:34, Susan Hedeen wrote: > I really don't have an opinion on it; I see plus and minus from > several > points of view. On the one hand, what if genetic genealogy had > nothing > to do with this? Would the attitude be different? Suppose it was a > bog > body or an "under the car park body" rather than an identified grave? > > On the face of things one could say that disturbing the remains of a > known individual could be creepy I guess. On the other hand for an > environ in a region that seems consumed by history and historical > claims > regarding its past populations, the descending surnames, etc., it > could > be considered coming to grips with all the realities surrounding the > considerations of that. > > One only needs to refer to the many debates regarding the "Niall and > the > Nine Hostages" linkage to IMH and then M222 to understand that in > microcosm this may be a reflection of firming up the various claims > and > sorting quantifiable facts from unqualified speculation. > > Is it important? I don't know. > > We have many hundreds to thousands involved in genetic genealogy, more > involved in genealogy, and more yet involved in the attempt to > understand history and the place of our ancestral heritage and > ourselves, all spending multiples of thousands of dollars and > immeasurably more of investigative time in the quest to satisfy the > questions. Just how important is that? In the broader scope will any > of it alter this world as we know it? Bring a betterment in living to > man kind? Stop the wars, the hate, and the ill will that exists among > people? Will understanding our ancestors and from whence they came > alter history as we know it and then promote the better within us? > Tough questions that all come down to personal aspirations and > interests > and what they mean to us. > > I do understand your point of view as well as the other side. Susan > > On 6/14/2014 2:31 PM, Malcolm McClure wrote: >> Susan >> Maybe it's just me, but I find taking this extreme intrest in >> paternal genetics a bit creepy. The Scots have long been fascinated >> by the resurrectionists but this must be a new departure for the >> Irish. >> Malcolm >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message