can someone point me in the right direction on where to order BDM certificates online from Scotland, I am after certs from D&G area. Hopefully a similar site to the "General Register Office for England and Wales" where I can order pay by credit card and recieve in Australia 5 days later by post. Kind regards Pamela Pamela Thorburn Marshall, Qld, Australia --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

Hi - After a discussion with a group of friends today one of them announced her uncle had traced their family tree back to the 1100's. For some reason, I don't think this is possible. Can anyone explain to me how one can go that far back and actually 'claim' that everything is factual? I believe there was a discussion about this once before but I can't recall the outcome. Any suggestions? May

Most who claim of such a feat give genealogists a bad name, and give reputable historians something to laugh about. Dean -----Original Message----- From: May [mailto:schultem@telusplanet.net] Sent: September 20, 2004 6:05 PM To: DUMFRIES-GALLOWAY-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [D-G LIST] Tracing family tree Hi - After a discussion with a group of friends today one of them announced her uncle had traced their family tree back to the 1100's. For some reason, I don't think this is possible. Can anyone explain to me how one can go that far back and actually 'claim' that everything is factual? I believe there was a discussion about this once before but I can't recall the outcome. Any suggestions? May ==== DUMFRIES-GALLOWAY Mailing List ==== ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If your line involves the surname BRUCE why not join CLAN-BRUCE-L@rootsweb.com and find out more. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not unless one can prove paternity which is quite impossible whether it be 1100 or 1900. The recent trend using DNA to establish relationship is revealing surprises for many and some of those thought to be kin cannot possibly be. I doubt if human nature has changed much. That is why " family history" seems more acceptable than "genealogy". Adrian Verry May wrote: >Hi - > >After a discussion with a group of friends today one of them announced her >uncle had traced their family tree back to the 1100's. For some reason, I >don't think this is possible. Can anyone explain to me how one can go that >far back and actually 'claim' that everything is factual? I believe there >was a discussion about this once before but I can't recall the outcome. Any >suggestions? > >May > > > >==== DUMFRIES-GALLOWAY Mailing List ==== >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >If your line involves the surname BRUCE why not join >CLAN-BRUCE-L@rootsweb.com and find out more. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >

I have a case that illustrates the argument. I can take my line back through documentary evidence [parish registers] to a marriage in 1684 between a John Spedding and a Sarah Carlisle. So far so good. I feel comfortable with that, subject to the no-one-knows-for-sure-who-the-father-is argument. There is no registered baptismal entry for Sarah Carlisle. There is though a statement in a 19th century family history - one more convincing than most - that Sarah is the 'joint heiress with her sister Mary of Lancelot Carlisle of Guards'. So that gives us a 'family hearsay' gap, but one whose veracity is strengthened by the fact that Sarah had a son called Lancelot, not a common name. The older Lancelot Carlisle could of course have been [say] an uncle, but on the balance of probabilities he's likely to have been her father. Let's call that, for the sake of argument, an 80% probability. Further back, there are no baptism records. But in Dumfries we have records of a 1635 sasine that names Lancelot as the son of Herbert Carlyle of Brydekirk. Further land transaction documents take us back, generation by generation, to the late 15th century Adam Carlyle of Brydekirk, brother of the first Lord Carlyle, son of Sir William Carlyle. Here we're in pre-register territory, where you can only hope to trace people back if they owned land and/or had a title. By following the land, you can get a best-likelihood view, and thus I can guess with [say] 60% probability that Sir William is a direct descendant of the Sir William Carlyle who married Margaret, one of the 5 sisters of Robert the Bruce, in around 1286. Before that there are ocasional land transaction documents that might just connect Margaret Bruce's husband to a Hildred Carlyle who had land in Cumberland in the early 1100s. Although it's the 'most likely' scenario [but only most likely in that there are no viable alternatives] I'd put it's probability at no more than 20%. Where does that leave us? By multiplying probabilities, even if you say that in each generation there's only a 1% chance that a child is not the genetic son of its mother's husband, I'd say that the probability that I have a 12th century ancestor called Hildred Carlyle is little more than 1%. I'd suggest that this is typical of many trees 'traced' back to to the early Norman era. The exceptions are those with connections to royalty, where the land/title connections can give you a greater degree of confidence, always accepting the who's-the-real-father uncertainty. Peter Cox ----- Original Message ----- From: "May" <schultem@telusplanet.net> To: <DUMFRIES-GALLOWAY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 11:04 PM Subject: Tracing family tree > Hi - > > After a discussion with a group of friends today one of them announced her > uncle had traced their family tree back to the 1100's. For some reason, I > don't think this is possible. Can anyone explain to me how one can go that > far back and actually 'claim' that everything is factual? I believe there > was a discussion about this once before but I can't recall the outcome. Any > suggestions? > > May > > ______________________________