On 7/1/2016 6:42 PM, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > On 7/1/2016 12:56 PM, Jeanie Roberts wrote: > [snip] >> I am hoping I can use this group as a resource when I need help, >> especially when correcting errors on wikitree, and that you won't >> dismiss my questions as to amateurish. My first attempt to reply seems >> to have bounced back. My apologies if this is sent twice. > Your message did appear twice. Messages don't always appear immediately > after being sent. Try waiting for a few hours before you resend to see > if your message appears. Jeanie: A message from you was stopped this afternoon because it exceeded the 35,000-byte maximum size allowed for GEN-MEDIEVAL. This can happen, for example, when someone makes a moderately long response to a moderately long message (or sequence of messages) quoted in full. It can also happen when a message is submitted in both plain text and HTML, which more than doubles the length of a submission as compared to the version sent as just plain text (and anyway any HTML styling in submitted messages is not displayed in the versions distributed by RootsWeb). In the Mozilla Thunderbird email program, for example, under Options you can select Delivery Format and specify plain text, rich text (HTML), or both. -- Don Stone

On 7/1/2016 12:56 PM, Jeanie Roberts wrote: > I am new to this group and hope you don't mind me butting into this > thread. I confess to among other things, being an amateur genealogist > and to belonging to wikitree. If that's not bad enough, I also write > a blog. New posters are always welcome. We were all new posters at some point. > I am very new to medieval genealogy and it will be a long, long time > before I have anything new to add to this field if ever. However, when > I am 'working' on my ancestry I don't just copy what everyone else has > written without trying to find the original source to see what exactly > the researcher is referencing. I add these sources to the wikitree > profiles. I view my contribution to wikitree as a two steps forward > one step back process. I make some headway and someone else comes > along and edits my contribution. I am willing for now to give it a try. All improvements to the accuracy of online genealogy are a good thing, although I try to avoid the "one step back" part as much as I can. :-) Everyone should contribute their research in a way which they believe to be most suitable. One recommendation I would make for those working on such wikis is that they maintain a separate backup copy of their research which contains ONLY the material that they have carefully checked against the original sources, unpolluted by material contributed by others. Part of the reason for the current online genealogical mess is that too many researchers have imported and merged the GEDCOM files of others into their personal databases. My recent diatribes on this subject have been written to clear up two serious misconceptions. First, I wanted to explain in detail why I remain unconvinced that the current wikis or other open genealogical databases will EVER evolve into the type of relatively reliable resource that many genealogists seem to want. Second, I wanted to explain more clearly why many experienced genealogists do not believe that their time would be well spent contributing to such collections. Part of the passion behind my remarks has been due to some rather thinly veiled insinuations that experienced genealogists who don't contribute to wikitree or other publicly shared databases are somehow not contributing what they should to the genealogical world. Experienced researchers should not have to explain repeatedly their lack of enthusiasm for the suggestion that they turn their research over to be revised by those not qualified to do so. > I am hoping I can use this group as a resource when I need help, > especially when correcting errors on wikitree, and that you won't > dismiss my questions as to amateurish. My first attempt to reply seems > to have bounced back. My apologies if this is sent twice. Your message did appear twice. Messages don't always appear immediately after being sent. Try waiting for a few hours before you resend to see if your message appears. Stewart Baldwin

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 7:28:58 PM UTC-4, Chisholm via wrote: > I sent Adrian Benjamin Burke and Joe Cooke a rather large file and I wonder if they have arrived. i havent received anything and checked my spam folder might not have gone through if it was large you might be able to zip in into a smaller size file? adrian

On 30/06/2016 1:30 PM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > Baudouin who was killed at Montauban in 1214 was definitely a brother > of Raimond of Toulouse whose parents were Raimond of Toulouse (numbering > these men now is practically worthless) and Constance of France. Whether > Baudouin was Raimond's full-brother or a paternal half-brother is less definite > (he was certainly not a maternal half-brother). This is a misstatement on my part - Baudouin was certainly the son of Constance. He was born in Paris in the winter of 1165/66 while she was there after attending the baptism of her nephew Philippe, and he grew up in northern France since Constance did not return to Toulouse (she was divorced from his father in 1166). Baudouin apparently went to Toulouse for the first time ca 1205, when he was around 40 years old. Peter Stewart

On 7/1/2016 7:40 AM, WJH via wrote: > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:21:00 PM UTC+1, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: >> On 6/30/2016 5:02 AM, WJH via wrote: >> Its not just about "ownership" rights, but also (and more important to >> me) in taking pride in one's work. > I don't think it's fair to suggest that only experts take pride in their work My statement was not meant to suggest that. I think that most genealogists, at all levels of experience, take pride in their work. In a way, that is part of the problem. Some of the less open-minded genealogists get extremely offended when anyone suggests that they have made an error, even when the evidence against their opinion is overwhelming. The more aggressive ones are sometimes able to change the minds of more talented novices who have not yet gained the necessary confidence or experience. I confess that I am often unsure of the approach to take when I need to tell a correspondent of a serious error in their research, and I often don't know what reaction to expect. Some are happy to have the correct information, some are offended that I had the nerve to suggest that their information might be wrong, and others, while not offended, try to come up with some sort of argument (often outlandish) to "save" the line. Some genealogists seem to form a sort of emotional attachment to their newly found ancestors (an understandable reaction, at least for the more recent ones), and this can be difficult if the information turns out to be wrong (especially if it has been believed for some time). Also, some may regret the "wasted" time spent researching people who were not their ancestors. >> I have already seen too many cases >> where someone has copy-pasted my work and then butchered it in various >> ways. > So a good Wiki will have rules (created by users) to reduce this. As I said these are already emerging and my guess is that the more the better genealogists get involved, the faster the rules will evolve None of the genealogy wikis I have seen seem to have such rules. >> People doing higher quality work might be less reluctant to >> contribute material to a project managed by individuals competent to >> deal with such material. > The whole point of a Wiki is that it is essentially self-managing, although one of the interesting things about familysearch is that it's a wiki with an invisible big brother overseeing it, which does set rules on some things, even if they're hidden in the algorithms employed e.g. for identifying possible duplicates. > > My view is that at present, familysearch is getting better, the myriad copies of the medieval individuals that sit behind the trees I'm looking at are being reduced to a handful as both the management and individuals like me spend time merging obvious duplicates, so that in many cases it's now at the stage where the decisions that need to be taken are genealogical and will only be answered by good genealogical research tied to records / sources outside the software: i.e. by people like the members of this group. Yes there will be debate and familysearch needs to get better at managing that debate: e.g. it should be possible to create alternatives for dates when merging individuals, who are obviously the same even though there are discrepancies. Some merges are completely routine, such as when the information is identical, one having been copied from the other (or both from the same source). However, merges involving overlapping information can cause serious problems. A huge number of nonexistent individuals exist in these databases, created by the combination of careless guesswork and careless merges of previous genealogists. Further merges can easily result in the creation of additional genealogical fictions, unless the primary evidence is being carefully consulted at the time of the merges (which I doubt is occurring). Also, too much merging of such information will sometimes remove clues that might be useful in tracking down the primary sources, or even unintentionally produce red herrings that will lead such researchers down the wrong path. There also seems to be a great reluctance to abandon "information," even when it is smothered by "red flags." Some genealogists seem to use "not yet conclusively proven to be false" as their standard of proof, perhaps including an inappropriately weak qualification like "possible" or "probable" with the "information" (words often routinely removed by some amateurs). I have even seen it suggested that such disproof, once found, is not valid until it has been published in print! All genealogists struggle with how to deal with information that looks plausible enough but has not been backed up by any evidence by the individuals claiming it. The approach I often use is to bury the unverified claim in a footnote, with a remark that no known evidence supports it (partly as a challenge to those who might have such evidence to produce it). In some cases, amateur genealogists have played mix-and-match with certain families in so many different ways that the fill-in-the-blank approach preferred by most databases simply will not work. A similar thing often happens in medieval genealogy when several different scholars have used the same primary evidence to present different scenarios. Wikis usually make a complete mess of such situations. The writers of such wiki pages often seem to be unaware of the fact that no intelligent synthesis can be made in a case like this by someone who is not familiar with the underlying primary evidence. Another point worth mentioning here is the treatment of common errors. When there were long threads in this group during the late 1990's and early 2000's regarding the possible creation of a cooperative medieval genealogy database, someone mentioned the idea of including the mention of common errors. I wish I could remember who first suggested this so I could give them credit for it, but when I created the Henry Project in 2001, I took that idea and ran with it, making a point to mention common errors along with an explanation of WHY the information was wrong. Although the genealogical literature and the Internet have many such discussions, I have not seen any other online database giving a systematic coverage of the major known errors relevant to the individuals in question. (Of course, the Henry Project does not discuss ALL errors. There are far too many.) It would be nice to see more of this. Perhaps some project managers are reluctant to tell people that their research is incorrect, but the supposedly "democratic" idea that uninformed opinion counts the same as uninformed opinion guarantees lack of quality. > However, that's my point about the genealogy as both a hobby and an academic study having reached a particular point in its development, which means that the landscape is likely to be very different in the next ten years. My feeling is that the subject as a whole will be in a better place if "good" genealogists contribute sooner, but that by not contributing they will essentially end up talking to themselves, because no-one else will be listening. Is is unfair to suggest that the good genealogists are not contributing. You can find their work in journals like "The American Genealogist" ("TAG"), "The Genealogist" ("TG"), and the "New England Historical and Genealogical Register" ("NEHGR"), and in many other high quality books and journals. The "payment" that these authors receive is a free copy of the issue in which their article appears. Given a choice between submitting their research to a place where it is likely to be butchered and a place that will respect it, is it that surprising that they choose the flatter? Yet the managers of wiki websites either routinely ignore the scholarly genealogical literature, or cite it indirectly (i.e., without reading it) or out of context. One final point: Reconstructing medieval family groups from scratch using primary records might seem like reinventing the wheel to some, but in addition to helping prevent errors (and identifying places where additional documentation is needed), it can also be an important learning experience. Any project director wants to pass judgement on the work of others ought to demonstrate first that they are capable of doing such research themselves. Stewart Baldwin

On 1/07/2016 3:18 AM, James LaLone via wrote: > Leo's site gives Jean de FIENNES as married once to Isabelle de DAMPIERRE > (aka FLANDERS), From somewhere I also have him 2m to a Joan JORDAIN with a > son John, b. c. 1300, d. 5 Apr 1351 - True or false? False - Jean married Isabelle of Flanders in 1307 and their son Robert (known as Moreau) was his heir in 1340, so the latter can't have had an older half-brother born ca 1300 and living until 1351 (much less born from a subsequent marriage). > > Leon has Jean having two daughters by Isabelle named Jeanne. > > 1. Jeanne 1m. to Jean I de CHATILLON, 2m. to Jean de LANDAS - ( > http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00027526&tree=LEO) > > 2. Jeanne m. to Jean d'ESTOUTEVILLE - ( > http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00106896&tree=LEO) > > Is this correct that he had two daughters with the same name? No - apart from their son Robert (Moreau), constable of France, Jean and Isabelle had two known daughters: Jeanne, as above, and Mathilde who married Jean II, seigneur of Bournonville. It is possible that Jeanne married (as her third husband) Jean d'Estouteville, seigneur of Torcy, but this is not certain. Peter Stewart

On 30/06/2016 11:50 PM, pauloricardocanedo2 via wrote: > Well even if Ed Mann uses some false connections in some of his works it doesn´t mean the other works he does are wrong. > > Of course it doesn't - however, it does mean that the work is most probably no better than other bunglers could do for themselves. This is the same pitiful excuse that has been made here for depending on Medieval Lands. The facile habit of using readily-accessible stashes of data causes many an amateur in medieval genealogy to waste time and effort. It means that one busy ignoramus exerts an influence in this field that is out of all proportion to the skill and sense brought to it. Self-indulgent clinging to trust in self-evident charlatans is currently disgracing two of the world's greatest nations. It doesn't have to disfigure SGM discussions as well. Peter Stewart

If you go back far enough on the _Miscellanea genealogica et heraldica_ pedigree, you'll notice that the Andrew Bures-Alice Roydon marriage is placed there as belonging several generations earlier. Also, this Poynings account in _Sussex Archaeological Collections_ shows the descent from Poynings to Bures as I gave it, while showing Hawise Poynings (m. Roydon) as a daughter of Sir Nicholas Poynings and his wife Jane Talbot: https://books.google.com/books?id=jDcGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA15&dq=%22andrew+bures%22+poynings&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ7Yz2wtLNAhXJSSYKHRRGAAoQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=%22andrew%20bures%22%20poynings&f=false Anyway ... something for the descendants of Judith King Aylmer to straighten out (or disprove).

The History of Essex, sub Foxearth manor calls the wife of Andrew Bures Alice de Roydon and provides alleged ancestry for her saying her mother was Hawise de Poynings. I do not have primary doc. for this. If this is correctt, it would just change a couple generations as Hawise was daughter of Sir Michael Poynings and Margery Bardolf as I understand it. Doug Smith

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:21:00 PM UTC+1, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > On 6/30/2016 5:02 AM, WJH via wrote: > > > I think we can all agree that most Wikis are rubbish in the medieval period, that this is due to poor "management" and too many "copiers without understanding and "importers of gedcoms". > > This statement is very misleading, unless you replace the word "most" by > "all". I used "most" because I believe I can support it based on my personal knowledge and experience, whereas I can't use "all" because I don't have experience of all Wikis. > If you disagree, it would be interesting to know of a genealogy > Wiki that is not rubbish for the medieval period. Personally, I would be > unable to identify an example even if the qualifying words "in the > medieval period" were removed. > > > The question is whether the response is to create a new "pure" wiki > > project or to try and improve one or all of those already available (in > > which case there's the question of "which one?"). > > > > My basic hypothesis is that for those who are interested in sharing what > > they know (i.e. not Denis by the sound of it), the second route makes > > more sense. > > In my opinion, it is unlikely that the second route will ever lead to > anything better than "not quite as bad as it used to be." Even if it > were possible (which would require a method that corrects errors faster > than they are being introduced), the labor involved in cleaning up these > messes would be much more than just starting from scratch. > See below > > Of course, no large project could ever be error-free. However, the only > reasonable way of producing something of real value is to keep the > number of errors to a minimum from the very beginning. Whether a new > VERY strictly managed "wiki" or something else is the best way of doing > this is unclear. Again, see below > > As has been pointed out, any such project would need to attract > knowledgeable genealogists. In my experience, the better genealogists > do not particularly care for the "cleaning up other people's messes" > approach to genealogical research. > > > This is not to denigrate those who want to retain control / ownership of > > "their" work, merely saying that almost by definition, they are not > > likely to find the wiki ethos of "intellectual commons" congenial. > > > > Having said that, the history of trade and intellectual property rights > > shows that generally knowledge expands fastest when barriers are lowest, > > which brings the greatest benefit to the largest number of people. > > > > I assumed when I joined the group that its main reason for existing was > > to share knowledge: something I'm all for. In that regard it's ironic > > that the two posts I've made asking for information / guidance on > > specifics have not received a single post in reply... However, this > > thread seems to be generating more heat than light. > > > > So, to turn Denis' question round: why would anyone outside its existing > > "community" want to contribute to this board? > > Its not just about "ownership" rights, but also (and more important to > me) in taking pride in one's work. I don't think it's fair to suggest that only experts take pride in their work > I have already seen too many cases > where someone has copy-pasted my work and then butchered it in various > ways. So a good Wiki will have rules (created by users) to reduce this. As I said these are already emerging and my guess is that the more the better genealogists get involved, the faster the rules will evolve > People doing higher quality work might be less reluctant to > contribute material to a project managed by individuals competent to > deal with such material. The whole point of a Wiki is that it is essentially self-managing, although one of the interesting things about familysearch is that it's a wiki with an invisible big brother overseeing it, which does set rules on some things, even if they're hidden in the algorithms employed e.g. for identifying possible duplicates. My view is that at present, familysearch is getting better, the myriad copies of the medieval individuals that sit behind the trees I'm looking at are being reduced to a handful as both the management and individuals like me spend time merging obvious duplicates, so that in many cases it's now at the stage where the decisions that need to be taken are genealogical and will only be answered by good genealogical research tied to records / sources outside the software: i.e. by people like the members of this group. Yes there will be debate and familysearch needs to get better at managing that debate: e.g. it should be possible to create alternatives for dates when merging individuals, who are obviously the same even though there are discrepancies. However, that's my point about the genealogy as both a hobby and an academic study having reached a particular point in its development, which means that the landscape is likely to be very different in the next ten years. My feeling is that the subject as a whole will be in a better place if "good" genealogists contribute sooner, but that by not contributing they will essentially end up talking to themselves, because no-one else will be listening. Which is almost where I've got to! I find it fascinating that no-one has actually addressed my requests for information (my suspicion is that that's because the people I've asked about fall outside the group's sweet spot of finding royal descents), or tried to explain why a newbie would want to get involved with this board... However, the combination of the two outcomes does rather suggest that, apart from the thrill of a good argument like this one, I'm not actually going to get much benefit by contributing further... Although I very much hope for some evidence to the contrary! Regards James

The website for the GEN-MEDIEVAL list and the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup is at http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~medieval/. It includes the FAQ, information about the archives, and some reference information. -- Don Stone, GEN-MEDIEVAL co-listowner (with Todd Farmerie)

Thank you very much. On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Peter Stewart via < gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > On 1/07/2016 3:18 AM, James LaLone via wrote: > > Leo's site gives Jean de FIENNES as married once to Isabelle de DAMPIERRE > > (aka FLANDERS), From somewhere I also have him 2m to a Joan JORDAIN with > a > > son John, b. c. 1300, d. 5 Apr 1351 - True or false? > > False - Jean married Isabelle of Flanders in 1307 and their son Robert > (known as Moreau) was his heir in 1340, so the latter can't have had an > older half-brother born ca 1300 and living until 1351 (much less born > from a subsequent marriage). > > > > > Leon has Jean having two daughters by Isabelle named Jeanne. > > > > 1. Jeanne 1m. to Jean I de CHATILLON, 2m. to Jean de LANDAS - ( > > http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00027526&tree=LEO) > > > > 2. Jeanne m. to Jean d'ESTOUTEVILLE - ( > > http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00106896&tree=LEO) > > > > Is this correct that he had two daughters with the same name? > > No - apart from their son Robert (Moreau), constable of France, Jean and > Isabelle had two known daughters: Jeanne, as above, and Mathilde who > married Jean II, seigneur of Bournonville. > > It is possible that Jeanne married (as her third husband) Jean > d'Estouteville, seigneur of Torcy, but this is not certain. > > Peter Stewart > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 9:02:00 PM UTC-7, P J Evans wrote: > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 8:51:02 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 2:59:08 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 8:42:59 AM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > > > > > REPLY: > > > > Your commentary is not impressive. > > > > > > Mr. Tinney's denialism has again led him to distort the scientific record. > > > > > > taf > > ====================================================== > > REPLY: Wow! What scientific record are you talking about? I'm sure you know that [UCL (Univeresity College London) is one of the world's very best universities, consistently placed in the global top 20 in a wide range of world rankings. The school is currently 7th in the QS World University Rankings (2015/16) > > http://www.academic-genealogy.com/schoolscollegesuniversities.htm > > > > UCL News has just posted, as of 29 June 2016, their newest finding, that "Our ancestors evolved three times faster in the 10 million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs than in the previous 80 million years, according to UCL researchers. The team found the speed of evolution of placental mammals – a group that today includes nearly 5000 species including humans – was constant before the extinction event but exploded after, resulting in the varied groups of mammals we see today." . . . "Our findings refute those of other studies which overlooked the fossils of placental mammals present around the last mass extinction. . . ." The scientific record are you talking about changes from day to day; it is theory from uncertain findings vs new theory and unsure findings. > > So it is always, "What is the current position?" This may generously be defined as falling into the category: scientific inquiry; NEVER as real scientific fact. > > https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0616/290616-ancestor-evolution-post-dinosaurs > > > > Problematical theories > > . . . > > Alternative theories of human origins > > The story of human origins is complicated. Many of the genetic studies cited in support of the Out of Africa hypothesis have been based on analysis of Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Yet Y-DNA and mtDNA represent only a tiny fraction of the human genome, and we have until recently been reliant on the analysis of DNA extracted from contemporary people. The surviving Y-DNA and mtDNA lines represent only a subset of those present in the ancestral population. Advances in ancient DNA testing in the last few years are now beginning to transform our understanding and knowledge. [Transform the facts? It appears to me scientists are moving deck chairs around on the ship Titanic.] > > http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/theories > > > > Debunking Genetic Astrology > > . . . [ Recently, exciting progress has been made in recovering DNA from ancient burial sites, but it remains broadly true that making inferences into the past from DNA requires assumptions and mathematical models, and input from other fields such as history, archaeology and studies of historic geography and climate. New DNA genotyping and sequencing technology, and improved statistical models, have accelerated progress, but inferences still need to be accompanied by caveats about the assumptions and approximations made, and by assessments of uncertainty. . . .] > > http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking > > > > Biblical associations are allowed to be discussed at UCL. If you remember, I clearly indicated DNA was invalid as a conversion resource tool, since Biblical human physical bodies, of those ancient "saints", are DNA resurrected; the DNA of Jesus Christ was immortal, at least on His male Father's side: He, the first fruits for mankind's resurrection. LDS theology of course makes DNA assertions problematic, since its Missouri for the home of Adam and Eve, and instantaneous pangea did not occur until post flood. However, it can be noted, that prior to pangea, Missouri was actually not really that far away from continental Africa. with human and animal travel being more universal within one combined land mass. > > Mr. Tinney does not distort the scientific record; he compares input from all written records, religious or secular, comparing it with developing postulation. > > https://www.google.com/search?q=pangea&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVx_HNodHNAhVBRGMKHadTD6gQsAQIKg&biw=1600&bih=727 > > UCL news on prehistorical evolution of mammals is not relevant to this newsgroup. Neither is evolution of humans. > And religious beliefs about DNA and genealogy are suspect at best, and bogus most of the time. (I include the Book of Mormon in the category of bogus.) REPLY: You seem to have missed: [Roughly 1,000 years ago one’s direct medieval male ancestor, . . .] Use Your DNA to Rediscover Your Irish Heritage "A painless commercial ancestral Y chromosome DNA test will potentially provide one with the names of many hundreds of individuals with whom one shares a common male ancestor, but what often perplexes people is how one can match many individuals with different surnames? The answer is quite simple. Roughly 1,000 years ago one’s direct medieval male ancestor, the first for example to call himself ‘Bowes’ was living in close proximity to others with whom he was related but who assumed other surnames like Carroll, Dooley and Kelly. Given that 1,200 years have passed since paternally inherited surnames first appeared, there will be many descendants of those individuals, some of whom will today will undergo commercial ancestral DNA testing. Hence the Surnames of one’s medieval ancestor’s neighbours will be revealed in today’s DNA test results." http://www.irishorigenes.com/ This is just one of the subsets of a more complex discussion at: Dubious commercial claims . . . Genetic homeland case reports [Genetic homeland case reports are offered by Tyrone Bowes through his Irish Origenes, Scottish Origenes and English Origenes websites. The reports purport to pinpoint the place of origin of one's patrilineal ancestors one thousand years ago based on the results of a 37-marker Y-DNA test from Family Tree DNA. However, the methodology used in the reports does not appear to have been subjected to systematic testing or scientific peer review, and the reports make a number of false assumptions and fail to quantify or report uncertainty. See Debbie Kennett's critique of the Origenes' genetic homeland case reports for a summary of the problems. See also Debbie's letter in the August 2014 issue of Family Tree Magazine.] . . . http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/companies

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 8:51:02 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 2:59:08 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 8:42:59 AM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > > > REPLY: > > > Your commentary is not impressive. > > > > Mr. Tinney's denialism has again led him to distort the scientific record. > > > > taf > ====================================================== > REPLY: Wow! What scientific record are you talking about? I'm sure you know that [UCL (Univeresity College London) is one of the world's very best universities, consistently placed in the global top 20 in a wide range of world rankings. The school is currently 7th in the QS World University Rankings (2015/16) > http://www.academic-genealogy.com/schoolscollegesuniversities.htm > > UCL News has just posted, as of 29 June 2016, their newest finding, that "Our ancestors evolved three times faster in the 10 million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs than in the previous 80 million years, according to UCL researchers. The team found the speed of evolution of placental mammals – a group that today includes nearly 5000 species including humans – was constant before the extinction event but exploded after, resulting in the varied groups of mammals we see today." . . . "Our findings refute those of other studies which overlooked the fossils of placental mammals present around the last mass extinction. . . ." The scientific record are you talking about changes from day to day; it is theory from uncertain findings vs new theory and unsure findings. > So it is always, "What is the current position?" This may generously be defined as falling into the category: scientific inquiry; NEVER as real scientific fact. > https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0616/290616-ancestor-evolution-post-dinosaurs > > Problematical theories > . . . > Alternative theories of human origins > The story of human origins is complicated. Many of the genetic studies cited in support of the Out of Africa hypothesis have been based on analysis of Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Yet Y-DNA and mtDNA represent only a tiny fraction of the human genome, and we have until recently been reliant on the analysis of DNA extracted from contemporary people. The surviving Y-DNA and mtDNA lines represent only a subset of those present in the ancestral population. Advances in ancient DNA testing in the last few years are now beginning to transform our understanding and knowledge. [Transform the facts? It appears to me scientists are moving deck chairs around on the ship Titanic.] > http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/theories > > Debunking Genetic Astrology > . . . [ Recently, exciting progress has been made in recovering DNA from ancient burial sites, but it remains broadly true that making inferences into the past from DNA requires assumptions and mathematical models, and input from other fields such as history, archaeology and studies of historic geography and climate. New DNA genotyping and sequencing technology, and improved statistical models, have accelerated progress, but inferences still need to be accompanied by caveats about the assumptions and approximations made, and by assessments of uncertainty. . . .] > http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking > > Biblical associations are allowed to be discussed at UCL. If you remember, I clearly indicated DNA was invalid as a conversion resource tool, since Biblical human physical bodies, of those ancient "saints", are DNA resurrected; the DNA of Jesus Christ was immortal, at least on His male Father's side: He, the first fruits for mankind's resurrection. LDS theology of course makes DNA assertions problematic, since its Missouri for the home of Adam and Eve, and instantaneous pangea did not occur until post flood. However, it can be noted, that prior to pangea, Missouri was actually not really that far away from continental Africa. with human and animal travel being more universal within one combined land mass. > Mr. Tinney does not distort the scientific record; he compares input from all written records, religious or secular, comparing it with developing postulation. > https://www.google.com/search?q=pangea&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVx_HNodHNAhVBRGMKHadTD6gQsAQIKg&biw=1600&bih=727 UCL news on prehistorical evolution of mammals is not relevant to this newsgroup. Neither is evolution of humans. And religious beliefs about DNA and genealogy are suspect at best, and bogus most of the time. (I include the Book of Mormon in the category of bogus.)

On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 2:59:08 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 8:42:59 AM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > REPLY: > > Your commentary is not impressive. > > Mr. Tinney's denialism has again led him to distort the scientific record. > > taf ====================================================== REPLY: Wow! What scientific record are you talking about? I'm sure you know that [UCL (Univeresity College London) is one of the world's very best universities, consistently placed in the global top 20 in a wide range of world rankings. The school is currently 7th in the QS World University Rankings (2015/16) http://www.academic-genealogy.com/schoolscollegesuniversities.htm UCL News has just posted, as of 29 June 2016, their newest finding, that "Our ancestors evolved three times faster in the 10 million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs than in the previous 80 million years, according to UCL researchers. The team found the speed of evolution of placental mammals – a group that today includes nearly 5000 species including humans – was constant before the extinction event but exploded after, resulting in the varied groups of mammals we see today." . . . "Our findings refute those of other studies which overlooked the fossils of placental mammals present around the last mass extinction. . . ." The scientific record are you talking about changes from day to day; it is theory from uncertain findings vs new theory and unsure findings. So it is always, "What is the current position?" This may generously be defined as falling into the category: scientific inquiry; NEVER as real scientific fact. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0616/290616-ancestor-evolution-post-dinosaurs Problematical theories . . . Alternative theories of human origins The story of human origins is complicated. Many of the genetic studies cited in support of the Out of Africa hypothesis have been based on analysis of Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Yet Y-DNA and mtDNA represent only a tiny fraction of the human genome, and we have until recently been reliant on the analysis of DNA extracted from contemporary people. The surviving Y-DNA and mtDNA lines represent only a subset of those present in the ancestral population. Advances in ancient DNA testing in the last few years are now beginning to transform our understanding and knowledge. [Transform the facts? It appears to me scientists are moving deck chairs around on the ship Titanic.] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/theories Debunking Genetic Astrology . . . [ Recently, exciting progress has been made in recovering DNA from ancient burial sites, but it remains broadly true that making inferences into the past from DNA requires assumptions and mathematical models, and input from other fields such as history, archaeology and studies of historic geography and climate. New DNA genotyping and sequencing technology, and improved statistical models, have accelerated progress, but inferences still need to be accompanied by caveats about the assumptions and approximations made, and by assessments of uncertainty. . . .] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking Biblical associations are allowed to be discussed at UCL. If you remember, I clearly indicated DNA was invalid as a conversion resource tool, since Biblical human physical bodies, of those ancient "saints", are DNA resurrected; the DNA of Jesus Christ was immortal, at least on His male Father's side: He, the first fruits for mankind's resurrection. LDS theology of course makes DNA assertions problematic, since its Missouri for the home of Adam and Eve, and instantaneous pangea did not occur until post flood. However, it can be noted, that prior to pangea, Missouri was actually not really that far away from continental Africa. with human and animal travel being more universal within one combined land mass. Mr. Tinney does not distort the scientific record; he compares input from all written records, religious or secular, comparing it with developing postulation. https://www.google.com/search?q=pangea&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVx_HNodHNAhVBRGMKHadTD6gQsAQIKg&biw=1600&bih=727

On 2016-06-30 03:30:15 +0000, Peter Stewart via said: > There is a misunderstanding somewhere in this: Baudouin who was killed > at Montauban in 1214 was definitely a brother of Raimond of Toulouse > whose parents were Raimond of Toulouse (numbering these men now is > practically worthless) and Constance of France. Whether Baudouin was > Raimond's full-brother or a paternal half-brother is less definite (he > was certainly not a maternal half-brother). > > However, it is highly questionable that Baudouin married Alix of > Lautrec, and even more so that they had any offspring. > > Philippe Zalmen Ben-Nathan in *Annales du Midi* 114 (2002) cogently > proposed that the brothers Bertrand I and Sicard VI of Lautrec were > actually sons of Frotard III, and that Alix may have been the latter's > sister with no known posterity from a possible marriage to Baudouin of > Toulouse. You can read or download his article here (and copy-paste > from it into an online French-English translator), > http://www.persee.fr/doc/anami_0003-4398_2002_num_114_239_2777. Thank you for this. I did in fact read Google Translate's approximation of the article, and a subsequent search-engine trawl through the world of Francophone medieval genealogy makes it clear that this model is now the one predominantly accepted there. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden pnh@panix.com about.me/patricknh http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/index.php

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 12:34:47 PM UTC-7, Hans Vogels wrote: > Do I presume correctly that Neil McGuinan suggests an Irish descent for Crínán, (lay-)abbot of Dunkeld? > Not explicitly, but implicitly. He suggests that the name Maldred is of Irish origin, and that the original form is found earlier in Dunkeld among a powerful family that claimed Irish royal descent, but he predominantly is using this to support the argument that since Maldred's name was used by a powerful Dunkeld family, his father Crinan is likely to be identical to the Crinan of Dunkeld known as father of Duncan. taf

I see Ann Marbury for starters!

great thanks will check it out!

Yes! Sara Delano is descended entirely from medieval ancestors! If any of them can be traced, I cannot tell you. However, this may provide some leads. http://www.genealogics.org/ahnentafel.php?personID=I00199962&tree=LEO&parentset=0&generations=11