Mike & all, I agree with and endorse everything you say below with one possible exception. As I understand the Visitation, the resulting data "could" very well be the product of Legend, the vagaries of human memory, or the possibility of unintentional (or even intentional) fabrication of facts due to "Family Pride". I believe that John Wedgwood Pound even mentioned the lack of interest in details on the part of the interviewer when the obvious was - obvious. As such, the Visitation was not necessarily based on "actual source documentation". I believe it would be only logical, when there is a disagreement between the Visitation and other well known secondary sources to give the benefit of doubt to the others - realizing that they may not be 100% correct either and try to get the actual facts from primary sources if available. Dick Dutton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael L. Dunton wrote: > > Carole, > > I would be careful not to consider any of these references as "sources". At > least in the sense that you should pick one as truth over another. I would > simply use them as a lead. These works had to have found actual source > documentation somewhere? This is what we must seek out. > > The source documents either are there, or where there. The earliest > writers, the secondary sources (like the quoted 'Visitation' pedigree) used > these source documents plus family provided information. I agree with what > John Wedgwood Pound wrote that even these secondary source pedigrees may not > be very accurate. > > Since it is also likely that the 'Visitation' documentation was some of the > "source" material that Cope and others used, accruracy is removed once > again. > > Again, consider all leads in seeking the truth, and try not to get > frustrated. It is clouded by time. > > Hope this helps. > > Mike > <><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~ > The Dunton Family Homesite > http://www.web-ster.com/miked > list manager for dutton-l@rootsweb.com & dunton-l@rootsweb.com > <><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carole Malisiak [mailto:malisiak@midohio.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 3:40 PM > To: DUTTON-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Heraldic Chart > > Hi! > I checked out a link that Mike had mailed us and found it extremely > interesting. It is a Heraldic Visitation of Cheshire, 1580. This > pedigree also does not agree with Cope!! and does not agree with the > Chart from Dick!! But it does say that Huddard is a cousin to W. > Conqueror. The more information that I see, the more different lines we > have. I guess you just have to pick one source and stick with it. But, > you would think that one of them has to be the right one!!! > > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/8555/visit.html > > Confused in Ohio. > Carole