On 11/07/16 21:15, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > The author of the interesting article linked infra about Theresa May [soon > to be PM] is Roy Stockdill. > > https://blog.findmypast.co.uk/famous-family-trees-theresa-may-1406260824.html I suppose there's a medieval slant on this in that the dreadful woman has done her utmost to take British civil rights back to those of early C13th England. As Home Sec. she introduced the bill for RIPA which legitimises mass surveillance of communications, overriding the presumption of innocence, and, by allowing non-judicial warrants, overrides the Magna Carta provision of due process of law. I suppose she must reckon that a run of 800 years was long enough. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

Kevan, I am so happy to find this information. Henry Maiben is my 3rd great grandfather :). I read somewhere else that he was the one who designed the Utah Beehive, but I haven't been able to find a source to mark it as fact - Do you have the source for this? How exciting! I'm looking forward to hear from you! Cara On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 5:05:48 PM UTC-7, Kevan Barton via wrote: > Folks, > > > > A 19th Century immigrant of mine, Henry Cater Maiben (1819-1883) , was from > Brighton, England. His family worked on coaches and painted, among other > things, the heraldic insignias of the coaches at the Brighton Pavilion. On > coming to Utah, he continued to paint and some of his original work can > still be seen in the Mormon Temple (a very significant work of 19th century > architecture) in Manti, UT. Additionally, the beehive, a state symbol of > Utah is also his work and was incorporated into the Utah state flag. His > music can also be found in early Deseret Hymnals (19th century Mormon Hymn > book). He was a member of the first Theatrical troop organized in Salt > Lake, the first ballet master into the territory... That's the introduction. > > > > 19th Century Mormon Gateways to nobility appear to be very rare. In a > short bio of his brother John, written at John's death, it is stated the > family Maiben was descended from the McBean/McBain/Mabon family of Stirling, > Scotland; with descent from the Stewarts. Indeed, the family originated > in Stirling - no doubt on that fact, but until recently, I've never seen a > line that connected the Maibens to the Stewarts to prove the family rumor > expressed in the stated bio. I've quoted the stated line below. > > > > I'm going to tackle it, but thought it best to throw it to this readership > for an initial looksee at the earlier connections to see if it quickly > tumbles apart. Though it is not early American, it is indeed a possible > gateway to medieval nobility. > > > > Henry Cater Maiben (1819-1883) m. Flora Louise Maddison > > William Maiben (1788-1870) m. Catherine Williams Cater > > Adam Maiben (b 1757, Stirling, d 1817), Scotland m. Sarah Osmer > > Robert Maiben (1722-1763) m Elizabeth Toshack > > David Toshack (1707-1753) m Janet Paterson > > James Paterson (b c 1678) m. Marion Motheral > > James Paterson (b c 1645) m. Isobell Provan > > John Paterson (b c 1615) m. Jonnet Ker > > Thomas (Sir) Ker (b c 1590) m. Margaret Ramsay > > Andrew Ker (1562-1631) m Anne Stewart (1566-1670) > > Andrew Stewart, Master of Ochiltree (1540-1578) m. ? > > Andrew Stewart (2nd Lord of Ochiltree) m. Agnes Cunningham > > Andrew Stewart (1490-1548) m Lady Margaret Hamilton (1505-1544) > > James Hamilton 1st Earl of Arran (1470-1529) m. Beatrice Drummond > > James Hamilton (1415-1488) m. Princess Mary Stewart > > James Stewart II, King of Scotland > > > > Just looking for a cursory view letting me know if it immediately falls > apart. > > > > Cheers, > > Kevan

Hello, fellow researchers! I was wondering what anyone knew about a connection between Theis Matthias Doors and Agnes op den Graeff. I've seen her connected to the name Hilleken/Hallerkin/Hillekrin and her birthplace is either listed as being in Kaldenkirchen or in Krefeld. Any help untangling this would be most appreciated! Vanessa A. Shafer

On 11/07/2016 2:23 PM, taf via wrote: > Since making my post on Antonio Rei's paper regarding the Maia descent, I have laid hands on another paper of his, claiming to trace Iberian descents from Muhammad. > > “Descendência hispânica do Profeta do Islão – exploração de algumas linhas primárias”, in Armas e Troféus, IX série, 2011-2012, Instituto Português de Heráldica, Lisboa, pp. 31-59 > > I despair! > > At one point he makes Egilona, wife of Visigoth king Roderick then of conqueror Abd al-Aziz ibn Musa, a kinswoman of the Banu Qasi founder simply because "what could be more natural?" (and I note that this supposed relationship has found its way into Spanish Wikipedia as if it were authentic history). He then, I kid you not, indicates that the rest of that descent comes 'primarily from' Medieval Lands - this from an academic researcher, basing an entire paper on something he found on the internet. > But "what could be more natural"? Genealogy is so little regarded by many academics that when one does venture into the subject all bets (and most standards) are off. Medieval Lands is readily accessible and seems to carry the imprimatur - if not the outright sponsorship - of the "Foundation for Medieval Genealogy", which may appear a substantial referee in its favour. This exemplifies why I was so appalled at its promotion here in the first place, and at the continuing regular use of it by some who should know better. The work of anyone who wants to make a gold-standard wiki in this field has been made much harder, if not practically impossible, by the recourse of so many to the glister of fool's gold. Peter Stewart

On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:23:22 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > “Descendência hispânica do Profeta do Islão – exploração de algumas > linhas primárias”, in Armas e Troféus, IX série, 2011-2012, Instituto > Português de Heráldica, Lisboa, pp. 31-59 There is one additional relationship that is worth addressing, because it is indicative of the nature of these things. Rei shows Musa ibn Musa with two wives, Assona, daughter of Inigo Arista, and Oneca Velasquez, daughter of Velasco, lord of Pamplona. The first of these wives comes from the Codice de Roda. It must be said that this relationship falls before the historical horizon of that source. I think there is room to question whether this statement was an attempt to reflect a non-descript memory of relationship-via-a-female that is reflected in al-Muqtabis of Ibn Hayyan as a half-brother relationship between Musa ibn Musa dn Inigo Arista. This relationship is central to the chain that led to the 'second wife' of Musa ibn Musa. Not helpful is a specific ambiguity in al-Muqtabis. He refers to brothers "ily ibn Wannaqo" (the lord Iniguez) and "Furdoun ibn Wannaqo" of Pamplona, and to Musa ibn Musa, half-brothe rof both. Elsewhere he reports the death of Wannaqo ibn Wannaqo, lord of Pamplona and the succession of his son as "Garsiyya ibn Wannaqo". A full reading makes it clear that the Lord Iniguez and Inigo Iniguez are the same, but as knowledge of these texts first drifted into the genealogical community, before their formal publication, some authors were confused over who it was how it all fit together and who was brother and half-brother of whom. As usual, these problems persisted in English-language sources longer, with one common compendium from the 1970s reporting that a non-existent king Inigo Iniguez succeeded Inigo Arista, to be followed by his brother of Garcia Iniguez. One likewise, in early-to-mid-20th century sources, finds every manner of placement of Musa ibn Musa and Inigo Arista with respect to the marriage that united the two families (half-brothers vs step-father and step-son or themselves husband of the same woman). There are three assumptions of slip-shod medieval genealogy we see frequently: that genealogy abhors a vacuum, that everyone who held power in a region must be related, and that everyone with the same name must either be the same person or related. Each of these comes into play in the creation of Oneca Velasquez. First, the name Oneca (the feminine form of Inigo), as one of the few names we know from the region and period, so it has separately been tapped to serve as the name of the wife of Inigo and also that of his mother. Independent of this is the supposed parentage of Inigo's wife. There are three references to the name Velasco in the early days of Pamplona. In 816, we read in al-Muqtabis, Velasco, lord of Pamplona and an army that included Garcia Lopez, nephew of king Alfonso, Sancho, premier knight of Pamplona, and Saltan, knight among the pagans (apparently representing Zaldun, Basque for knight) were defeated by the troops of the emir. Nothing more is known of any of these people. Later, again from al-Muqtabis, we learn that during the rebellions of the 940s and 950s a Velasco Garces went over to the Cordoban side. Finally, we have from the Codice de Roda a Garcia Velasquez (son of Velasco), who strong-armed his way into the county of Aragon in resentment over a practical joke played on him by the Count's son. There have been sloppy attempts to link these three Velascos together, making Garcia Velasques the son of Velasco the turn-coat, himself made son of king Garcia Iniguez (even though there is no indication in al-Muqtabis that this was the case, and Velasco appears to have been Garcia's contemporary). To explain the introduction of the name Velasco into the family (as if the use of such a common Basque name by a Basque dynasty needed explanation), it then makes king Garcia the son of Inigo Arista by the daughter of the earlier lord Velasco (ignoring that Inigo was, prior to 840, in the pro-Cordoba camp that crushed Velasco in 816). This neatly ties together all of the men named Velasco and the leaders of both Pamplona factions along with Aragon into a single descent. No basis for any of it, other than the supposition that everyone named Velasco must be related/identical, but there it is. Now, combine the groundless naming of Inigo's wife as Oneca with the this chain of Velasco descent and you get Oneca Velasquez, wife of Inigo Arista and daughter of Velasco. With both Inigo's wife and mother, separately, being assigned the name Oneca, and with the older sources confusing which Inigo was married to the same woman as which Musa, this has somehow led to the transfer of Oneca Velasquez, supposed wife of Inigo Arista, to Musa ibn Musa. Thus, by combination of invention, supposition and confusion, we manage to arrive at the marriage reported by Rei. taf

Oddly, it looks like a few of the Patent Roll books on Hathitrust (Henry III volumes 1, 2, and 3 are the ones I noticed) are unavailable to most users outside the USA (unless they are using a VPN). It doesn't seem to be related to date of publication -- maybe it's some kind of error. Roderick

This is a pretty poor reflection of the portugese institute of heraldry of Lisbon. Is this a to poall level of editorial review for them?

Since making my post on Antonio Rei's paper regarding the Maia descent, I have laid hands on another paper of his, claiming to trace Iberian descents from Muhammad. “Descendência hispânica do Profeta do Islão – exploração de algumas linhas primárias”, in Armas e Troféus, IX série, 2011-2012, Instituto Português de Heráldica, Lisboa, pp. 31-59 I despair! At one point he makes Egilona, wife of Visigoth king Roderick then of conqueror Abd al-Aziz ibn Musa, a kinswoman of the Banu Qasi founder simply because "what could be more natural?" (and I note that this supposed relationship has found its way into Spanish Wikipedia as if it were authentic history). He then, I kid you not, indicates that the rest of that descent comes 'primarily from' Medieval Lands - this from an academic researcher, basing an entire paper on something he found on the internet. OD the three descents he includes, the first includes four connections (marriages or relationship of child to parent) that are completely invented, but he doesn't give this possibility the slightest consideration. As to the other two descents shown, one goes through a man who was an invention of an 18th century historian, and the other accepts an origin legend as absolute fact, he being completely unaware that the family in question didn't even exist at the time of the legend and the line he shows is based on the connect-the-dots, name's-the-same speculation by the same 18th century historian (Salazar y Castro). Sigh! taf

On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 8:26:26 AM UTC-4, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > Stewart Baldwin > > But at least that site uses generational gaps of 30 and 35 years that agrees with the Welsh Laws see http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id22.html . This is an utterly unconvincing argument made on this page. It makes a giant leap of assumptions to rule out men at 25 having a family. To assume in Welsh culture that men remained celibate until 30 or 35 years is a strange enough claim that needs a much broader set of proof to overcome.

Em sábado, 9 de julho de 2016 20:05:17 UTC+1, Stewart Baldwin via escreveu: > On 7/9/2016 12:02 PM, Paulo Canedo via wrote: > > Hello, I contacted Mr.Darrell Wolcott president of the Center for the Study of Ancient Wales about if Angharad was a late invention and he said that altough the first manuscript mentioning Angharad was from the fourtheen century, the sources of that manuscript given the people mentioned could be of as early as the first quarter of the 13th century. And more important, altough Angharad wasn´t mentioned in Harleian Ms 3859 written c. 970x985 neither was any son of Rhodri Mawr except Cadell, the son who was a paternal ancestor of Owain ap Hywel Dda and no one denies that Rhodri Mawr had other children. > > Mr. Wolcott is the author of all of the "studies" from the "Center for > the Study of Ancient Wales" which I have seen, and so far as I can tell, > the "Center" is little more than window dressing to make Mr. Wolcott's > often outlandish throries seem more scholarly than they really are. My > recommendation would be not to trust the information on that site. > > As for Angharad, here basence from Harleian MS 3859 is not main point. > Other than the lateness of the evidence, the main problem is that the > earliest manuscript mentioning her has an identifiable pattern of > suspicious features suggesting that a number of women were invented to > provide convenient marriages for the kings of Gwynedd to allegedly > "inherit" other kingdoms, and Angharad is a part of that pattern. > > Stewart Baldwin But Mr. Wolcott told me that Angharad also appears in the now-lost Hengwrt Ms 33 which was copied several times while extant.

Em sábado, 9 de julho de 2016 20:05:17 UTC+1, Stewart Baldwin via escreveu: > On 7/9/2016 12:02 PM, Paulo Canedo via wrote: > > Hello, I contacted Mr.Darrell Wolcott president of the Center for the Study of Ancient Wales about if Angharad was a late invention and he said that altough the first manuscript mentioning Angharad was from the fourtheen century, the sources of that manuscript given the people mentioned could be of as early as the first quarter of the 13th century. And more important, altough Angharad wasn´t mentioned in Harleian Ms 3859 written c. 970x985 neither was any son of Rhodri Mawr except Cadell, the son who was a paternal ancestor of Owain ap Hywel Dda and no one denies that Rhodri Mawr had other children. > > Mr. Wolcott is the author of all of the "studies" from the "Center for > the Study of Ancient Wales" which I have seen, and so far as I can tell, > the "Center" is little more than window dressing to make Mr. Wolcott's > often outlandish throries seem more scholarly than they really are. My > recommendation would be not to trust the information on that site. > > As for Angharad, here basence from Harleian MS 3859 is not main point. > Other than the lateness of the evidence, the main problem is that the > earliest manuscript mentioning her has an identifiable pattern of > suspicious features suggesting that a number of women were invented to > provide convenient marriages for the kings of Gwynedd to allegedly > "inherit" other kingdoms, and Angharad is a part of that pattern. > > Stewart Baldwin But at least that site uses generational gaps of 30 and 35 years that agrees with the Welsh Laws see http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id22.html .

Em sábado, 9 de julho de 2016 20:05:17 UTC+1, Stewart Baldwin via escreveu: > On 7/9/2016 12:02 PM, Paulo Canedo via wrote: > > Hello, I contacted Mr.Darrell Wolcott president of the Center for the Study of Ancient Wales about if Angharad was a late invention and he said that altough the first manuscript mentioning Angharad was from the fourtheen century, the sources of that manuscript given the people mentioned could be of as early as the first quarter of the 13th century. And more important, altough Angharad wasn´t mentioned in Harleian Ms 3859 written c. 970x985 neither was any son of Rhodri Mawr except Cadell, the son who was a paternal ancestor of Owain ap Hywel Dda and no one denies that Rhodri Mawr had other children. > > Mr. Wolcott is the author of all of the "studies" from the "Center for > the Study of Ancient Wales" which I have seen, and so far as I can tell, > the "Center" is little more than window dressing to make Mr. Wolcott's > often outlandish throries seem more scholarly than they really are. My > recommendation would be not to trust the information on that site. > > As for Angharad, here basence from Harleian MS 3859 is not main point. > Other than the lateness of the evidence, the main problem is that the > earliest manuscript mentioning her has an identifiable pattern of > suspicious features suggesting that a number of women were invented to > provide convenient marriages for the kings of Gwynedd to allegedly > "inherit" other kingdoms, and Angharad is a part of that pattern. > > Stewart Baldwin But Mr.Wolcott believes that in truth Rhodri Mawr never ruled in Ceredigion, he just inherited a manor there.

On 7/9/2016 12:02 PM, Paulo Canedo via wrote: > Hello, I contacted Mr.Darrell Wolcott president of the Center for the Study of Ancient Wales about if Angharad was a late invention and he said that altough the first manuscript mentioning Angharad was from the fourtheen century, the sources of that manuscript given the people mentioned could be of as early as the first quarter of the 13th century. And more important, altough Angharad wasn´t mentioned in Harleian Ms 3859 written c. 970x985 neither was any son of Rhodri Mawr except Cadell, the son who was a paternal ancestor of Owain ap Hywel Dda and no one denies that Rhodri Mawr had other children. Mr. Wolcott is the author of all of the "studies" from the "Center for the Study of Ancient Wales" which I have seen, and so far as I can tell, the "Center" is little more than window dressing to make Mr. Wolcott's often outlandish throries seem more scholarly than they really are. My recommendation would be not to trust the information on that site. As for Angharad, here basence from Harleian MS 3859 is not main point. Other than the lateness of the evidence, the main problem is that the earliest manuscript mentioning her has an identifiable pattern of suspicious features suggesting that a number of women were invented to provide convenient marriages for the kings of Gwynedd to allegedly "inherit" other kingdoms, and Angharad is a part of that pattern. Stewart Baldwin

On 9/07/2016 1:24 AM, Hans Vogels via wrote: > Does in that era at times the Latin word "avunculu" not get misused in the meaning of greatuncle? In the 14th century in the dutchy of Brabant there are several examples known to me. Avunculus in that time and region was also misused for an paternal uncle (patruus). > > It seems that it kind of depends on the Latin skill of the writers. Can Dudo and Planctus be shown to misuse the Latin in other examples within their narrative? If one does not and the other does it regularly one could conclude which version of "avunculus" was more plausable. > > Or both autors ment the same but one of them used the wrong wording? Then again is there a Latin definition for a great uncle on the mothers side? The vocabulary in Planctus is not at issue over this - the word "avunculus" was used for William's relationship to Bernard in reported speech of the former as related by Dudo, and a direct statement that William's mother Popa was Bernard's sister occurs in a redaction made ca 1220 of the lost annals of Rouen cathedral ("Mortua est Gilla absque omni prole, et Rollo duxit Popam uxorem, filiam Wydonis comitis Siluanectensis, sororem Bernardi, de qua genuit Willelmum"). Trying to reconcile the term "avunculus" as indicating both uncle and great-uncle in Dudo runs into another problem: both his account and that of the Rouen annalist or his redactor make little chronological sense in recounting the circumstances of Rollo's union with Popa. This was narrated by Dudo immediately following the murder of Renaud, duke of Le Mans, in the summer of 885. If Bernard was the brother of Popa who was of marriageable age at that time, then the siblings were presumably born by the 870s. Yet, according to Dudo, Bernard himself after 942 called William's son Richard his most beloved nephew ("nepos meus dilectissimus") and took to the saddle on his behalf, whizzing around northern France after the boy was abducted from the custody of Louis IV. This behaviour hardly seems plausible for a great-uncle of around 70+ years. It is also inconsistent with Dudo's unctuous efforts to pretend that William was born at Rouen after Rollo's conversion to Christianity in 911 or 912 and placed in charge of his friend Botho for baptism ("Willelmus ... Rotomagensi urbe exstitit oriundus. Quem genitor ... Bothoni cuidam ditissimo comiti sacro baptismate perfusum ad educandum commendavit"). The annals - as redacted in the 13th century - imply that Rollo married Popa only after the death of his purported Frankish wife Gisla, whom he married in 911/12 as a result of the treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. This would make William too young to have succeeded Rollo when the latter retired from power - worn out by age and strife according to Dudo ("grandaeva aetate nimioque labore praeliorum consumptus") - implicitly soon after the culmination in June 923 of Robert I's struggle against Charles the Simple (although Rollo was still active in 928 according to Flodoard). The Planctus on the other hand, and far more plausibly, says that William was born overseas to a Christian mother while Rollo was still a pagan ("Hic, in orbe transmarino natus patre | in errore paganorum permanente, | matre quoque consignata alma fide, | sacra fuit lotus unda"). Peter Stewart

Hello, I contacted Mr.Darrell Wolcott president of the Center for the Study of Ancient Wales about if Angharad was a late invention and he said that altough the first manuscript mentioning Angharad was from the fourtheen century, the sources of that manuscript given the people mentioned could be of as early as the first quarter of the 13th century. And more important, altough Angharad wasn´t mentioned in Harleian Ms 3859 written c. 970x985 neither was any son of Rhodri Mawr except Cadell, the son who was a paternal ancestor of Owain ap Hywel Dda and no one denies that Rhodri Mawr had other children.

On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 3:41:13 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote: > The Henry Project page for William gives the date of his death as "(probably) 17 December 942", adding that "a literal reading of both known manuscripts of the Planctus suggests that the event occurred on a Saturday (dies sexta or die sexto)", see http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/willi000.htm. > > However, the sixth day of the week by medieval reckoning was Friday, not Saturday. This fits with William's death in 942 on 16 December (a Friday) as recorded in the obiturary of Jumièges, see (p. 422) https://archive.org/stream/recueildeshistor23bouq#page/422/mode/2up. > > Dudo gave 17 December ("XVI kalendas januarii"), although several manuscripts have this as 20 December ("XIII kalendas"). 17 December in 942 was a Saturday and 20 December a Tuesday. Dudo placed the event in 943, perhaps taking this mistake from Flodoard who had recorded it at the start of that year - for Flodoard the year began on Christmas day, and he probably heard the news at Reims shortly after 25 December. > > There is no doubt Flodoard meant that the death of William had occurred at the start of his 943 since other events reported later in that year were consequences of it, particularly the fate meted out to the killer and the reconciliation of Louis IV and Arnulf of Flanders, with whom he had been angry over the murder, reported towards the end of the same year. > > The correct date is most likely Friday 16 December 942, so that the two variant dates in copies of Dudo's work may both be misreadings of "XVII kalendas". > Thank you. I'm hoping that Stewart is still making corrections to the pages and that this and your updates for Richard I from April find their way to the Henry Project pages soon.

The Henry Project page for William gives the date of his death as "(probably) 17 December 942", adding that "a literal reading of both known manuscripts of the Planctus suggests that the event occurred on a Saturday (dies sexta or die sexto)", see http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/willi000.htm. However, the sixth day of the week by medieval reckoning was Friday, not Saturday. This fits with William's death in 942 on 16 December (a Friday) as recorded in the obiturary of Jumièges, see (p. 422) https://archive.org/stream/recueildeshistor23bouq#page/422/mode/2up. Dudo gave 17 December ("XVI kalendas januarii"), although several manuscripts have this as 20 December ("XIII kalendas"). 17 December in 942 was a Saturday and 20 December a Tuesday. Dudo placed the event in 943, perhaps taking this mistake from Flodoard who had recorded it at the start of that year - for Flodoard the year began on Christmas day, and he probably heard the news at Reims shortly after 25 December. There is no doubt Flodoard meant that the death of William had occurred at the start of his 943 since other events reported later in that year were consequences of it, particularly the fate meted out to the killer and the reconciliation of Louis IV and Arnulf of Flanders, with whom he had been angry over the murder, reported towards the end of the same year. The correct date is most likely Friday 16 December 942, so that the two variant dates in copies of Dudo's work may both be misreadings of "XVII kalendas". Peter Stewart

> Thanks for pointing out the "Get Satisfaction" page at Family Search. I've added a topic there regarding the Welsh database in the hope that it will get some attention. Perhaps others here can add their comments or "vote" on this there. For now, it should be near the top of the list at this page: > https://getsatisfaction.com/familysearch/topics No problem. Nathan

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 1:11:53 PM UTC-7, nathan...@gmail.com wrote: > > While we are on the topic of Family Search, there is one question I have > > about a "feature" which I have found very annoying. For example, if I > > do a search of all marriages involving a specific surname at a specific > > location during a specific time range, the "hits" usually appear in what > > seems to be no logical order. Why is this, and is there any way to have > > the hits delivered in a chosen order (e.g., chronological or alphabetical)? > > > > Stewart Baldwin > > Stewart, I've only heard of our engineers implementing feature requests > (1) when they are requested at GetSatisfaction and get hundreds of votes https://getsatisfaction.com/familysearch > (2) when they are brought up in classes at RootsTech where genealogists and engineers interact > > Sorry I can't be of more help. Thanks for pointing out the "Get Satisfaction" page at Family Search. I've added a topic there regarding the Welsh database in the hope that it will get some attention. Perhaps others here can add their comments or "vote" on this there. For now, it should be near the top of the list at this page: https://getsatisfaction.com/familysearch/topics

> While we are on the topic of Family Search, there is one question I have > about a "feature" which I have found very annoying. For example, if I > do a search of all marriages involving a specific surname at a specific > location during a specific time range, the "hits" usually appear in what > seems to be no logical order. Why is this, and is there any way to have > the hits delivered in a chosen order (e.g., chronological or alphabetical)? > > Stewart Baldwin Stewart, I've only heard of our engineers implementing feature requests (1) when they are requested at GetSatisfaction and get hundreds of votes https://getsatisfaction.com/familysearch (2) when they are brought up in classes at RootsTech where genealogists and engineers interact Sorry I can't be of more help.