On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 9:53:17 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > > Perhaps, but both have been useful. Y-DNA testing has been useful to connect individuals genealogically back 10,11, maybe 15 generations back or more. > > autosomal DNA testing has been useful to me to prove/connect to individuals on a must more recent timescale (5 or 6 generations back with confidence). > > So, Y-DNA has a lot more depth on the chart, but autosomal has much more bredth in lieu of depth. > > Both useful, but in different ways. I think Andrew was talking about a different type of autosomal analysis than you are. He was talking about SNP analysis used to determine ethnic proportions - basically useless for genealogy unless you don't know if your grandfather was a Finn or an Italian and you know everyone else is neither. What is more useful is the autosomal SNP clustering analysis that looks at conserved islands of contiguous DNA and can tell you someone is related to you within about a half-dozen generations. While it has limits, that can be useful data, though it proves no specific connection. taf

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 9:41:10 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > taf wrote: > > "Sorry - that should have been that the 'steppe' ancestry is lower - > that something must have diluted it in England." > > Or perhaps the steppe component has been arriving more quickly on the > continent in recent millenia, than on the western edge such as the Isles. I must have been unclear. The Celtic parts of Britain (Scotland, Wales, Cornwall) have higher steppe ancestry than the Saxon part, and it was thought this was due to the disparity between the two populations. However, as I understand it, recent work with ancient Saxon DNA indicates that they have the same amount of steppe ancestry as the Celts, so while the English regions would be different that the Celtic regions with regard to population-specific markers, they should have similar proportions of steppe ancestry - if you mix pink and pink you don't get white. There must be some other contribution specifically to the population in the southeast of Britain and not in the west or north England, that is causing the steppe proportion to be lower. > I am not sure what samples are being used to represent the Celts and Old > Saxons but even in Britain itself That is an issue - Deinekes mentioned the paper and had a link so you can see for yourself. > And here is a quick prediction: very detailed Y DNA SNP testing is > probably the next big thing for genealogy as such (based on male lines > of course). The prices continue to drop but none of the big testing > companies are good at it yet, and to use it well will require clever web > interfaces. There is a reason for this. Autosomal SNPs spread throughout a population, then to all of mankind, due to recombination every generation. Hence the same set of SNP sites will be informative across all customers. mtDNA and Y-DNA SNPs are clonal - they are unique to the specific lineage in which they arose, so any given SNP locus is likely only to be informative for a small proportion of the customers - it takes sequencing the entire chromosome to find the individual informative ones for each lineage. Because the mt chromosome is so small, it is practicable to sequence it in its entirety for relatively low cost, but the Y chromosome basically requires whole-genome sequencing to find the Y-SNPs (you just throw out all of the non-Y sequence data). Thus my prediction - that targeted analyses will give way to whole-genome sequencing. A single analysis will tell you autosomal, mt and Y SNPs all at once and you can just pick out whichever parts of the data are relevant to the analysis you want to perform. Current cost is just over $1000 per genome, and dropping quickly. taf

On 5/31/2016 2:32 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > Anyone reading the article by Andrew MacEwan that was cited in the thread 'Re: Christine, natural daughter of King William the Lion of Scotland ?' will find this on p. 19: The abstract of the article on the "Foundation for Medieval Genealogy" website makes the following statement: "He also offers a few thoughts on the Agatha problem." Does the article have anything of significance on this subject? Stewart Baldwin

On 26/05/16 21:37, Richard Smith wrote: > How is the scope of the project defined? Specifically, how obscure can > a family be while still qualifying as "landed, manorial or gentry"? > Certainly by the end of the period you mention, many people claimed to > be gentlemen who, a century earlier, would only have been described as > yeomen. A good question. Consider, for example, two families in the Huddersfield area who had a baronet line by the end of the period. The Kayes are documented in visitations going back to the John Kay[e] who leased the manor of Woodsome and Farnley Tyas. In the 1379 subsidy roll he is described as a franklin. The two visitations I have for him both give him 6 legitimate sons although they differ in the name of the sixth. They also give him 6 unnamed daughters. One gives him an additional illegitimate son, John, and a father William of whom there is no trace in the subsidy roll unless he is the Willelmus de Ky Wodekirk. We don't know how many times he married. The mother of his first son from whom the main Woodsome line descended was evidently a Finchenden. Was she the Margaret, given as his wife in 1379 or was she Elizabeth, named, unfortunately without a source, in a local history? One of the visitations also gives a line from the fourth son to the Kayes of Heath. Who was the mother of this line? From the Wakefield manorial rolls we know there was a John Kaye active in the years about 1300. He is frequently presenting essoins or standing as surety. After his death in 1316 his son German appears a few times clearing up his father's affairs. Later C14th rolls have few mentions of the family and there are none for a generation before the subsidy roll so we have no idea how John the franklin connects back to the earlier generations. The other family is the Armytages of Kirklees. These only go back to a John Armytage d 1573 and said to have been killed after being shipwrecked off Ireland* but documented thereafter. The only Armitages in the subsidy roll are Willelmus del Ermytache & Agnes uxor ejus and they only paid the standard 4d but they were in North Crossland, convenient to the eponymous hermitage which, as far as I can make out, was located in a corner of South Crossland next to the boundary stream with North Crossland. Frances Collins in the appendix to vol 2 of the PRs of Kirkburton lists a number of Armitage wills but they only date back to the C16th so there is nothing I know of at present to connect the Kirklees family back to William of the subsidy roll nor to extend William's ancestry back beyond the subsidy roll. There is, however, a good deal of obfuscation resulting from what are undoubtedly fabrications connecting the Kirklees family with an earlier family from Leicestershire. I would expect that this sort of emergence from obscurity would be repeated up and down the country and although a study of these families would be of some interest to the wider genealogical community it would be of limited value**. In my local area, for instance, Kayes crop up everywhere. Although those of us with multiple Kayes in our lines almost certainly descend from the original John of Woodsome the likelihood is that they go back either to either his four or five sons who aren't followed up in the visitations or to descendants of the other two sons off the main lines. Likewise I can establish a connection to one of the Armitage wills in Collins but that doesn't connect to any of the other wills. * I think there's a question mark here. John of Kirklees died at that time and I can find no trace of a local burial. The shipwreck is reported at Liverpool but the John Armitage listed there is said to be of Farnley Tyas. The IPMs of John of Kirklees and of his son list many holdings but none of them can by any stretch of the imagination be said to be in in Farnley. A John of Farnley Tyas had certainly had had disagreements with the Liverpool authorities in the past. Had they conflated two John Armitages? Was John of Kirklees formerly of Farnley and given an anachronistic description in the shipwreck report? ** There's also a risk that it would present a target for those seeking to link a name to which they have a genuine connection to a name which gives them an instant pedigree, much as did the Leicestershire Armitages to the Kirklees family. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

Happy for corrections or additions. Thought the court case particularly interesting. Pat ST. JOHN OF LANGHAM Thomas de St. John, Lord of Stanton, co. Oxon. Living 1112 d.? Barton:Late in the 12th century Thomas St John had a set of fish ponds made that were fed by the River Dorn.[2] Their remains are visible about 990 yards (910 m) north of the parish church.[1] Line falls to Thomas's brother: John de St. John s/h living 1139 had: 1. Roger m. Cecily Haya 2. Thomas de St. John s/h Lord of Stanton afsd 1166[1] 3. William de St. John wits 1212 grant of Odo Dammartin John alive 1229 Roger d. 1265-Lucy? de Lucy, sister of Richard de Lucy (Egremont)[1] (I)John b. bef. 1265 [2] d. 1317 (11 Edw II)-Alice SONS: John Nicholas (II)John b. 1277 d. 1323 m. Margaret/Margery who m 2) John de Ifield[PJ1] *seized of the manors of Stanton St. John and Barton) 1317 confirmed gift of Glimpton by father to Nicholas SONS: Peter b. 1313[4]. Thomas (By Ifield, Margery had Margaret who inherited Apuldrefield and Broham, m. Stephen de Ashway; Katherine m. Sir Thomas Foxle; Joan dsp)[5] (III). John b. 1308, d. 1349-Katharine de Saye d/o Geoffrey[PJ2] summoned to Parlia. 1327-1331, and in (1327)5 Edw III., “Making proof of his age, had livery of his lands.” SONS: John Roger b. 1329 d. 1353 dsp m. Joan William [PJ1]In 1343 Sir John de Ifield appears to be holding Swallowfield since in that year there is a suit between Roger son of John St. John miles and Joan his wife plts, and John de Sto. Johanne of Lageham, chivaler, deforciant, of the Manor ofSwalefelde, with appurts. which John de Ifelde chivaler and his wife Margeria hold for the term of the life of the said Margeria. John de St. John grants the reversion of the said manor after the death of John de Ifield and his wife to said Roger and Joan and the the heirs of their bodies; but if none, then revert to John de St. John and his heirs. Seipp Number: 1323.066 1323 Common Pleas Dower Dower Mich. 17 Edw. 2 Plt. Cecille, widow of John St. John of Lagham Other names Margery, widow of John of St. John of Lagham Cecille qe fuit la feme John de Seint John de Lagham port' breve de Dower Devom cele s.v. John (de Saint John), Lord Saint John of Lagham, b. 1276-1286, d. 1323, married Margery, d. 1346, in Cokayne, Complete Peerage, vol. 11, pp. 349-350. Summary: In a writ of Dower brought by Cecille who was the wife of John of St. John of Lagham, defendant said that the wife of John de St. John of Lagham was named Margery and not Cecille. Issue was joined on whether plaintiff had been John's wife joined to him in lawful matrimony. Cecille, who was the wife of John of St. John of Lagham, brought a writ of Dower. The defendant said that she who was the wife of John of St. John of Lagham had the name Margery, and not Cecile; ready etc. The plaintiff asked what the defendant answered to Cecile, who brought this writ. The defendant said as before. The plaintiff said that, if the defendant wanted to say that she who brought this writ had the name Margery, and not Cecille, she wanted to aver her writ, and this was another person than Margery; then the defendant could say that she was never joined in lawful matrimony. The defendant said that if she who brought the writ were here in her own person, he would well have knowledge whether she was the wife of John or another person, but he said that (dye qe) she was present by attorney, the defendant could not know this, except inasmuch as she named herself by the surname of the wife of John, and from this he took his answer, that is, that the wife of John had the name Margery, and not Cecille. The plaintiff said that, whether she were present by attorney or in her own person, this did not change the plea, and besides the defendant did not answer to Cecille, if he did not say that, whereas she named herself Cecille, she had the name Margery and not Cecille, because it could be that John had two wives, one Cecille and another Margery, and if it were so, then his wife had the name Cecille as well as Margery, and Cecille contra; thus the defendant's answer could be true with the plaintiff's writ; therefore the defendant pleaded nothing to the plaintiff. The defendant said that if he had another wife it was for the plaintiff to plead it, and in this way to maintain her writ, because the defendant pleaded as much as he could. Friskeney JCP said that his averment was not receivable, because it could have two causes of truth, the one, whereas she named herself Cecille she had the name of Margery; then by this mistake the writ was bad; the other, that she who brought this writ was never his wife, which would naturally be an answer to the action; therefore, this averment, which contained in itself two distinct matters (deux gros), of which one was to the writ and the other to the action, was not receivable. Bereford CJCP told the defendant to say over. The defendant said that his wife was never joined to him in lawful matrimony; ready etc., and the other side said the contrary. Where to aver the (devoins) B., (ove) in which church. A serjeant said, in the Bishopric of LIncoln, and in the church, etc.[1] 23 [1] http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/lawyearbooks/display.php?id=5388 On May 31, 2016, at 6:30 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > > On 31/05/2016 8:14 PM, Tompkins@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote: >> On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 4:26:39 PM UTC-6, rbe...@fernside.co.nz wrote: >> < In 1297 John de St John of Lagham wrote a letter from “Langham” to Ralph de >> <Manton, a senior official of the King and paymaster of the English troops, >> <requesting that he act on his behalf on the king’s business at a meeting in >> <Roxburgh in the Scottish Borders because he was ill. In the letter he referred >> <to John de Segrave as his cousin, “monsieur Johan de Segrave notre cosin”. >> < >> From: Douglas Richardson via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] >> Sent: 31 May 2016 02:29 >>> The letter by Sir John de Saint John was written in August 1298 (not 1297 as you say), from a place called Langham. For a full transcript of this letter, see Stevenson, Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland, 2 (1870): 305–306. Gough, Scotland in 1298 (1888): xliii also dates the letter as being in 1298 and further identifies Langham as being Langholm in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, NOT Lageham, Surrey. This same date (1298) and the same identification of this locality is also provided in a well researched biography of Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, in Howard de Walden, Some Feudal Lords & Their Seals (1903): 52–53 (biog. of John de St. John). >>> >> ------------------------------- >> >> If Stevenson's transcription of the letter is compared with its catalogue entry at the National Archives some oddities appear. Stevenson says it was dated at Langham on 'le xxvij jour de Auguste' and places it in [1298], whereas the TNA catalogue says it dated at Lochmaben on Tuesday before the beheading of St John Baptist and places it in [? 1302 Aug]. These discrepancies will have to be resolved before the year in which the letter was written can be determined. >> >> It does seem clear that the letter was written in Scotland, though, as the letter authorises Ralph de Manton to stand in for St John on 'Merkedy prochain après la feste Seint Bartelmew,' which cannot have been more than a couple of days after the date of the letter. If the date given by TNA is correct, then in any year the day of the meeting (Wednesday after the feast of St Bartholmew) will always be the day immediately after the date of the letter (Tuesday before the decollation of St John Baptist), so it must have been written within a day's ride of Roxburgh (which makes Langholm, 40 miles from Roxburgh, seem a bit more likely than Lochmaben, a good 55 or 60 miles away over rough hill tracks). >> >> If the date of the letter really was written as 'le xxvij jour de Auguste' then at least one year can be ruled out, as in 1299 the Wednesday after St Bartholomew fell on 26 August - the day before the date of the letter. In 1298 it fell on 27 August itself, which would probably have made it impossible for Ralph de Manton to get to Roxburgh in time for the meeting. Only in 1297 and 1300-1302 did the date of the meeting fall after 27 August (in 1297 on the following day, 28 August, and in 1300, 1301 and 1302 on 31st, 30th and 29th, successively). >> > > 1302 was perhaps proposed by the TNA cataloguer because on 15 August > 1302 "Sir John de St. John the K.'s lieutenant in Scotland, and Sire > Rauf de Mantone the K.'s clerk, agreed with Sir Patrick de Dumbar earl > of the Marche, to keep the castle and sheriffdom of Are ... Done at > Roxburgh, 30th August", see *Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland* > vol. 2 p. 335 no. 1320. > > 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 Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 12:41:10 PM UTC-4, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > taf wrote: > To have a quick rant: I think think profit promotion has been part of > the reason customers have had autosomal testing so heavily promoted, > much to the detriment of Y DNA. Autosomal testing is more useful for > ethnic ancestry approximation, but Y DNA (STR testing) has achieved the > most for normal genealogy. Perhaps, but both have been useful. Y-DNA testing has been useful to connect individuals genealogically back 10,11, maybe 15 generations back or more. autosomal DNA testing has been useful to me to prove/connect to individuals on a must more recent timescale (5 or 6 generations back with confidence). So, Y-DNA has a lot more depth on the chart, but autosomal has much more bredth in lieu of depth. Both useful, but in different ways.

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 8:18:39 AM UTC-7, Gordon Banks via wrote: > Do you think a descent from Noah would be any less mythological than > one from Wotan? Clearly, yes, the original poster does believe this (based on this and previous posts from same). Indeed, past posts have made it clear that part of the objection to DNA analysis is its failure to conform to a particular religiously-sanctioned version of human origin and dispersal. (I wasn't going to comment on this, but since the issue has been raised...) > > On May 29, 2016, at 19:58, Thomas.Milton.Tinney@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote: > > > > Ignorance, False Promises and Pseudoscience: Is This > > Profit Promotion of DNA Fiction by Senior Genealogists? It takes a certain degree of knowledge to comfortably call others ignorant (that or a lack of self-awareness). More on pseudoscience later. > > In 2013, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints suggested . . . > > Is this a serious public relations mistake, for an organization, noted > > for being the source of all truth, You must be aware that to the outside world, the LDS church is not noted for this particular attribute - indeed the majority of people on the planet would reject this characterization. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your theology. > > Well, from a Biblical standpoint, this is indeed true. To use this sentence in an argument accusing others of practicing pseudoscience is somewhat ironic. > > We are all related as descending posterity of the prophet Noah, whose > > cousin relatives and ancestry, consisting of all mankind living prior > > to the flood, were then DNA hourglass squeezed into the one small family > > unit that survived. If you are going to accuse others of ignorance, you could at least use the appropriate terminology - the technical term for this is a 'bottleneck', not an 'hourglass'. > > [" . . . Even if we use rates appropriate for the present world (x = 1 > > and C = 1.5), over 3 billion people could easily have been on the earth > > at the time of Noah."]. Though you give no credit, you are here quoting creationist Henry Morris, who used this calculation as just one of several, none of them with the slightest basis in reality. Using current population dynamics to model a hypothetical pre-flood scenario is dubious given how different modern times are from previous centuries. taf

Apparently, one lister suggested that my piece containing a mock-up of an entry for Sussex, as an example of the kind of entry in the List I proposed earlier this month had become buried in the thread, and was not seen by listers, so I append it here in hopes of responses. Thank you, Richard Richard Smith wrote: >> I think it would greatly help us in understanding your proposal if you >> mocked up a short section of this list, and then amplified on one (or a >> few) of the entries so we could see what you propose the detailed >> entries to look like. > > I shall get to my drawing board and work up some entries for this > to model my proposal for such a listing. > > >> Richard [Smith] > > Richard C-Z Herewith my mock-up: List of Landed, Manorial, or Gentry Families of England, Wales, and the Pale of Ireland, arranged by county, and covering the period from the Conquest to the Glorious Revolution (A.D. 1066-1688). Compiled by sundry contributors. Project examples prepared 28 May 2016, by Richard Carruthers-Żurowski, B.A. (Hons), Modern History, & M.A. (Oxon.). All collegial suggestions welcomed. Example of a Simple Listing SUSSEX Surname Locality Date From Date To Rank Title Contributor Source Research Pub. Var. ERNLE Earnley ca 1166 1632 ext.LMG Esq. RHBC-Z WSRO Yes Var. Yes ERNLE Sidlesham 1345/6 ibid. do do do Sx FF Yes do do ERNLE W. Wittering ante 1632 ext. do do do PCC Yes do do Source Detail (i.e. each entry’s justification), viz.: (could be made a clickable hyperlink) Line 1: WSRO Money-Kyrle ref. 1720/44 for Lucas de Erneleia fl. ca 1166 Line 2: Sussex Fines: 16-20 Edward III, An abstract of Feet of Fines for the County of Sussex, vol. 3: 1308-1509 (1916), no. 2003 for John de Ernelee the elder/Margaret wife, fl. 1345/6 Explanation of the categories included in the simple listing. Surname: Main spelling chosen for the family for which there was an entry. Locality: Could be a manor, or parish, estate, city, etc. Date from: date of record, either precise or approximate, as based on source citation. Date to: date of conclusion of study based on some sourced record. This could be hyperlinked to an explanation (in this instance, “Abstracts of probate acts in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, vol. 1, 1630-1634, p. 146 [Anno 1632] ERNLE, Richard, of Cackham (Cakeham, p. West Wittering), Sussex, Esq. Will [66 Audley] pr. June 16 by rel. Susan. P. r. Eliz RISTON” To this the word ext. could be included indicating that the line is apparently extinct in that locality at least at the date indicated, based on research justified by the source citation associated with that listing. If this were not the case, some other explanation could be provided on the date source page. N.B. if no date is yet included for the beginning of the period, the word ante indicating that some period prior to the date included as the terminus would be inserted. Rank: L for Landed, M for Manorial, G for Gentry. One or more would have to be chosen as justified by the source(s) cited. Research: Example of instance where a name in the simple listing is marked Yes (as being researched). The "Yes" would be highlighted and hyperlinked to another page showing the contributor’s name and contact information if so desired. This opens the possibility of monetising the project and charging a small fee for access to this information by non-contributors. Just how this might be made to work is something on which one would have to take advice, and, of course, need the agreement of contributors. There could be a sort of blind email address for contributors who did not want their personal email address or other particulars given out before they had had a chance to read any message sent and decide on its bona fides. This is done by the Guild of One-Name Studies (GOONS) for example. Pub. (for Publications): an indication that one or more items about the family listed have been published. The precise publications could be listed elsewhere and access to that list (which may or may not necessarily be exhaustive, of course, given human frailties, and the fact that the list of publications may grow with new discoveries of missing items, or indeed the inclusion of new publications. Var. (for Variants): all names are variants as they derive from possible representations of sounds indicative of a particular family. Here, however, the word Yes in this category would indicate that there are known and specific variants of which this entry may be deemed to be a primary, but not necessarily a sole, entry. The primary entry or entries (say, for example, ERNLE, ERNLEY, and ERNELEY) would be allowed to appear in the Listing based on the use of that spelling or spellings of the name indicated either by some justifying reason such as that that spelling is found extensively in the literature, citing where and when, or because it is the spelling associated with a modern family using that variant whose pedigree can be corroborated as linked to the name in the entry. This would obviously involve some work to provide reasonable justification, and could lead to legitimate differences of opinion, which could be made explicit elsewhere in the project’s hyperlinked pages. So elsewhere in the Listing for the county in question there could be subsidiary variant spellings given, with the date, and justification for that entry, e.g. Ernele (de) Ernelee (de) Erneleia The preposition de would appear in parentheses where the family found under that spelling was later found without it as having dropped its use. Ditto series of prefixed words such as (or series of prefixed words as in (de la) Estcourt, Where the preposition or prefixed words appeared in the name over time and were generally retained there would be no parentheses. Names would, however, be sorted by their substantive part, as in Ernle and Estcourt. One could include as many variants as were justified by citing at least one source. There could also be deviant spellings included, such as Early for Ernle where the ‘n’-less form can be clearly shown to be a case of usage for a person belonging to a family normally referred to under another a true variant. Var. could also be used to denote cases where a family, for example, Arundel or FitzAlan is referred to by more than one surname over time, and is nonetheless recognisably the same family. Of course, this could give rise to further debate, but that would be allowed for via other hyperlinked pages associated with the project as it develops. The development of more complex pages derived from the simple listing entries for surnames associated with a locality, by county, is something that can be considered later when the need arises. Indeed, someone else may want to jump in here with their suggestions. I should note that I limited the number of categories in the simple listing based in part on the page margins I am currently dealing with. Still, unless someone points out an obvious lacuna in my example, I think it is a fair representation of what may deemed a useful sort of listing which could serve as a sort of mediaeval and early modern genealogical research directory for families of these levels of society. Your thoughts are welcome, but please be collegially gentle with me!;) Thank you, Richard C-Z:)

Do you think a descent from Noah would be any less mythological than one from Wotan? Sent from my iPad > On May 29, 2016, at 19:58, Thomas.Milton.Tinney@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote: > > Ignorance, False Promises and Pseudoscience: Is This > Profit Promotion of DNA Fiction by Senior Genealogists? > > In 2013, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints suggested "New Technology Makes Family History Easier, Even Fun", noting "An interesting development in family history research is the use of DNA testing to discover one’s ethnicity." > https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-technology-makes-family-history-easier-even-fun?lang=eng > > Is this a serious public relations mistake, for an organization, noted for being the source of all truth, to promote hope in fictional data sets? Today, this is now updated in FamilySearch, the genealogy arm of the LDS Church, in subset "Hiring a DNA Testing Company", listed under Hiring a Professional Researcher. > https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Hiring_a_DNA_Testing_Company > > Evaluate one such company and its claims, that: "Once you've taken your test, we'll search our network of AncestryDNA members and identify your cousins—the people who share your DNA." And, AncestryDNA promotes itself as "The World's Largest Consumer DNA Database." Their site includes A Comprehensive Map of AncestryDNA Ethnicity Regions; currently listing 26 areas. > www.ancestry.com/DNA > > Well, from a Biblical standpoint, this is indeed true. We are all related as descending posterity of the prophet Noah, whose cousin relatives and ancestry, consisting of all mankind living prior to the flood, were then DNA hourglass squeezed into the one small family unit that survived. [" . . . Even if we use rates appropriate for the present world (x = 1 and C = 1.5), over 3 billion people could easily have been on the earth at the time of Noah."]. Ignorance: Any laundry list of people used on the earth, contains names and surnames, that are all related to each other, as a "cousin-hood"; this is not established genealogical proof. > http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm#012 > > http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html > > https://www.google.com/search?q=hourglass&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6upetr_rMAhVE72MKHb4TBC0QsAQIKA&biw=1600&bih=727 > > Furthermore, "Genealogical Discontinuities among Etruscan, Medieval, and Contemporary Tuscans", accepted June 10, 2009, concludes by stating what is not "a safe general assumption": "Only a handful of populations of preclassical Europe have been studied genetically, all of them only for mtDNA, and hence generalizations on their relationships with their current counterparts appear premature. Therefore, it is not clear yet whether these data may eventually force us to reconsider the results of studies inferring demographic history under the assumption that genetic diversity in current populations is a good proxy for the (unknown) diversity in past populations of the same region. At this stage, one can only emphasize that cases of both genetic continuity and discontinuity have been observed. Therefore, the notion that the modern inhabitants of a region are descended from its ancient residents does not seem a robust general assumption, but rather a hypothesis that whenever pos! sible should be tested empirically using ancient DNA." > http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/9/2157.full > > "This study shows that genealogical links can be detected between people who inhabited Tuscany at different time periods, but so far not between the Bronze Age and more recent inhabitants of the region." Additionally, "Analyses of mtDNA diversity in the British Isles (Töpf et al. 2007), and Iceland (Helgason et al. 2009), also showed sharp differences between historical and current populations. In addition, a large fraction (up to 80%, depending on the region considered) of the Dutch surnames were displaced from the areas in which their frequency was highest three centuries ago (Manni et al. 2005)." > > CONCLUSIONS: > (1) DNA testing cannot be used currently to discover one’s ethnicity > (2) Ethnicity Regions are only at present, pseudoscience conjecture. > (3) Effective family history research requires primary document data. > > REFERENCES: > DNA Testing: A Plus (+) or Minus (-) For Genealogy? > Mathematics Indicates That It Just Does Not Add Up. > https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10153907038371424&id=261975771423 > > "It is well known that horoscopes use vague statements which recipients think are more tailored than they really are (referred to as the ‘Forer effect’). Genetic ancestry tests do a similar thing, and many exaggerate far beyond the available evidence about human origins. You cannot look at DNA and read it like a book or a map of a journey. For the most part these tests cannot tell you the things they claim to – they are little more than genetic astrology." > http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/119/Sense-About-Genetic-Ancestry-Testing.pdf > > ------------------------------- > 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

> There is definitely not a consensus about this - the ultimate source for > "Popa" as a wife of Rollo is Dudo of Saint-Quentin, a notoriously > divisive figure considered by many historians to be a fantasist and > something of a pest. > > Dame Jinty Nelson wrote in 2011: "It is high time that historians > stopped citing Dudo, with however many qualifications, as supplying any > evidence at all for Rollo's wives or mistresses." > > It is by no means certain that Dudo's "Popa" even existed, much less > that her father was Berengar. > Peter Stewart Thank you very much, Peter. After I re-read all of my sources, my gut told me, "When in doubt, leave it out." I love your comment about Dudo. That made me laugh.

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 8:09:56 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > Along these lines, there is a new analysis of Britain that is to be > published that shows there is a significant genetic strain missing from > the current model. There has been a century-long debate over how much > Celt vs how much Old Saxon ancestry contributed to the current Englishman, > but the amount of 'steppe' ancestry in southeast Britain is higher than in > either Celts or Old Saxons. Sorry - that should have been that the 'steppe' ancestry is lower - that something must have diluted it in England. taf

Anyone reading the article by Andrew MacEwan that was cited in the thread 'Re: Christine, natural daughter of King William the Lion of Scotland ?' will find this on p. 19: 'Matilda’s first marriage to Henry V, which did not require a dispensation, was in marked contrast to her second, to Geoffrey le Bel, count of Anjou, which did, as Chibnall shows in her biography of the Empress: “Whatever her personal wishes she finally acquiesced in her duty. In May 1127 she was escorted to Rouen by her brother Robert of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count for formal betrothal to Geoffrey of Anjou. Bishop Roger of Salisbury later complained that only they and John, bishop of Lisieux, were consulted about the marriage.” ... Only later in the book does Chibnall refer to the dispensation, “She had married into the house of Anjou, but she had also married a kinsman so close that papal dispensation had been necessary for the marriage to be valid.” [para] Neither Hollister in his *Henry I* nor Warren in his *Henry II* mentioned the dispensation, and Chibnall neglected to cite her source. Does any reader know its terms?' I'm not sure what MacEwan meant by 'Chibnall shows', since clearly he did not have proof from her work, but in any event there was no papal dispensation. Nothing on the question can be found in the extant documents of Honorius II, pope from 1124 to 1130, and we have two sources providing good evidence that he was not involved in the matter - first William of Malmesbury reporting he had himself heard from Roger, bishop of Salisbury, that Henry I consulted only the three men named above about the marriage (William expressed reservations about Roger's credibility on this point, and could obviously have contradicted him outright if there had been a papal dispensation), and secondly the anonymous 'Historia Gaufredi', written in the 1170s, stating that members of the Anglo-Norman hierarchy had examined the marriage and consented to it. Peter Stewart

On 30/05/2016 10:41 PM, Kathy Becker via wrote: > Is there a consensus among the experts here that this is true? Or false? The conflicting sources that I have read so far leaves the question open. There is definitely not a consensus about this - the ultimate source for "Popa" as a wife of Rollo is Dudo of Saint-Quentin, a notoriously divisive figure considered by many historians to be a fantasist and something of a pest. Dame Jinty Nelson wrote in 2011: "It is high time that historians stopped citing Dudo, with however many qualifications, as supplying any evidence at all for Rollo's wives or mistresses." It is by no means certain that Dudo's "Popa" even existed, much less that her father was Berengar. Peter Stewart

On 30/05/2016 10:24 PM, John Watson via wrote: > On Monday, 30 May 2016 06:18:33 UTC+1, J.L. Fernandez Blanco wrote: >> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:21:33 PM UTC-3, taf wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 9:57:24 PM UTC-7, J.L. Fernandez Blanco wrote: >>> >>>> Cawley mentions, inter alia, "Pope Innocent IV permitted “nobili mulieri >>>> --- Sorori...Regis Scotie” to enter Doberan monastery, founded by “nobilis >>>> vir B. de Rozstoc maritus tuus”, to pray, dated 20 May 1248" (Source for >>>> this: Theiner, A. (1864) Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum Historia >>>> Illustrantia (Rome), CXXXV, p. 50.) >>> The text of this source reads: >>> >>> INNOCENTIUS EPISCOPUS etc. Dilecte filie Nobili mulieri ... Sorori Carissimi in Christo filii nostri ... Illustris Regis Scotie, salutem etc. Pium arbitramur et congruum, ut in hiis prompti simus ad gratiam, que profectum respiciunt animarum, presertim circa personas nobiles, que pura fide conspicue deo et ecclesie sunt devote. Hinc est, quod nos tue nobilitatis precibus annuentes, ut cum sex matronis honestis monasterium de Doberan Cisterciensis ordinis Zverinensis diocesis, cuius Nobilis vir B. de Rozstoc maritus tuus fundator existit, bis vel ter in anno causa devotionis intrare valeas, eiusdem ordinis statuto contrario non obstante, tibi auctoritate presentium conferimus facultatem. Datum Lugduni XIII. Kal. Iunii, Pontificatus nostri anno quinto. >>> >>> https://books.google.com/books?id=ADxQAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA50 >>> >>> taf >> Many thanks for the info, Todd. >> >> What do or can make out of this document? Any insights? >> >> Thanks. >> >> JL > Firstly, the name of the sister of the king of the Scots (Alexander II) is not given. Secondly we are told that her husband, B. de Rostock founded the Cistercian monastery of Doberan. Since the monastery was founded in or about 1186, she is more likely to have been the second wife of Borwin (or Burwin) I of Rostock, than his son Borwin II. The second wife of Borwin I was called Adelaide, and she had an only daughter Elisabeth (d. 1265), abbess of Wienhausen Abbey from 1241. > This is stretching the sense of the text rather a long way - "nobilis vir B. de Rozstoc maritus tuus fundator existit" was written in 1248: "maritus" (husband) without "quondam" (formerly), that is liberally used in papal documents for deceased persons, along with "fundator existit" (is a founder, NB in the present tense) strongly imply that B. of Rostock was still living at the time. He was apparently enjoying inherited founder's rights in Doberan abbey rather than necessarily being its initial founder (monastic foundation pancartes that were often presented for papal confirmation could extend the process over several generations). The lord of Rostock in 1248 was Heinrich Borwin III, as Hofmeister noted. Peter Stewart

On 5/30/2016 7:38 PM, taf via wrote: > It is entirely inappropriate to argue that a paper supports your > position without first reading it. Isn't arguing that a paper supports your position without first reading it a time-honored principle of pseudogenealogy? Stewart Baldwin

Dear Douglas, I am a bit confused by your post. Lagham in Godstone/Walkhamsted Surrey was the seat of that set of St Johns. There are other Langhams. I cannot understand the Seagrave connection. Is it through the Gyse, de Sai or other marriage? Was it a brother who married a Seagrave? Thanks Pat Sent from my iPhone > On May 30, 2016, at 8:29 PM, Douglas Richardson via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > My comments are interspersed below. DR > > On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 4:26:39 PM UTC-6, rbe...@fernside.co.nz wrote: > < Dear Mr Richardson > < > < Unfortunately you have a case of mistaken identity here and confused John de <St John of Basing (d.1302) for John de St John of Lagham (d.1316). > > It is easy to confuse two men of the same name, John de Saint John, of Basing, and John de Saint John, of Lagham. Both appear to have been in Scotland in this time period. > > < John de St John of Lagham was summoned to serve against the Scots in 1296 at < a time when John de St John of Basing was Seneschal of Gascony (1295-97), > < captured by the French at Bellegarde in 1297 and not released until 1299. The < latter’s son of the same name was serving in Flanders in 1297 and not > < summoned to serve against the Scots until 1299. > > C.P. 4 (1916): 324; 11 (1949): 324 (sub Saint John) states that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, was captured by the French in 1296 or 1297, and that he returned to England in 1297. He is stated in more than one source to have fought at the Battle of Falkirk in Scotland in 1298. You state without source that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, was not released by the French until 1299. That statement disagrees with every reliable source that I've checked. > > < In 1297 John de St John of Lagham wrote a letter from “Langham” to Ralph de <Manton, a senior official of the King and paymaster of the English troops, <requesting that he act on his behalf on the king’s business at a meeting in <Roxburgh in the Scottish Borders because he was ill. In the letter he referred <to John de Segrave as his cousin, “monsieur Johan de Segrave notre cosin”. > > The letter by Sir John de Saint John was written in August 1298 (not 1297 as you say), from a place called Langham. For a full transcript of this letter, see Stevenson, Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland, 2 (1870): 305–306. Gough, Scotland in 1298 (1888): xliii also dates the letter as being in 1298 and further identifies Langham as being Langholm in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, NOT Lageham, Surrey. This same date (1298) and the same identification of this locality is also provided in a well researched biography of Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, in Howard de Walden, Some Feudal Lords & Their Seals (1903): 52–53 (biog. of John de St. John). > > Just why you would change the date of the letter (1298) and the locality from Scotland to England is beyond me. Maybe you can explain your motives? > > < John de St John of Lagham was second cousin of John de Segrave by common <descent from the Despenser family. They also shared a common descent from <Richard de Lucy, the justiciar. > > Yes, it is true that the other Sir John de Saint John, of Lageham, probably had a Despenser mother [Complete Peerage suggests this possibility]. If so, this would make him near kin to Sir John de Segrave, as you state. However, as I set out the evidence in my earlier post, I showed that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, would also be related to Sir John de Segrave, by their common descent from the Cantelowe family. This cross-cross of kinships between baronial families is quite common in this time period. > > As far as which John de Saint John wrote the 1298 letter, both Gough, pg. 326, and Walden appear to think that it was Sir John de Saint John, of Basing. They could be wrong, but I doubt it. > > Is there any other evidence to tell us the identity of the author of the 1298 letter? > > Yes, I believe there is. In the 1298 letter, John de Saint John names not one, but two kinsmen, namely Sir John de Segrave and Sir Richard Siward, of Tibbers in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. There is a full biography of Sir Richard Siward published in Rogers, Book of Wallace 2 (1889): 320-323. Wallace says the following: > > Sir Richard Siward was "son or grandson of Richard Siward, of the reign of Henry, possessed lands in Hampshire, at Northamptonshire, and in Tyndedale. He also held lands in the south of Scotland." END OF QUOTE. > > Inasmuch as Sir Richard Siward's family held lands in Hampshire, this fact would tend to point that he was near related to Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, Hampshire, rather than Sir John de Saint John, of Lageham, Surrey. > > On the basis of the information cited above, I would identify the author of the 1298 letter as Sir John de Saint John, of Basing. His near kinship to Sir John de Segrave by the way of their common Cantelowe ancestry is near certain. > > In any event, the letter by John de Saint John was not written in 1297 in Surrey as you claim, but in Scotland in 1298. > >> Cheers >> Rosie > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah > > ------------------------------- > 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 5/29/2016 11:09 PM, joecook via wrote: > On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:58:26 PM UTC-4, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: >> Ignorance, False Promises and Pseudoscience: Is This >> Profit Promotion of DNA Fiction by Senior Genealogists? >> >> In 2013, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints suggested "New Technology Makes Family History Easier, Even Fun", noting "An interesting development in family history research is the use of DNA testing to discover one’s ethnicity." >> https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-technology-makes-family-history-easier-even-fun?lang=eng >> > <snip> > > Your conclusions are flawed and the primary reason is that your references are seven to nine years old, which is significant when dealing with new technology. Ancestry.com has built up an enormous database that gives a surprisingly good ethnicity estimate that attempts to reach back about 300-500 years. > > I am English, German, French, Italian, Irish, Dutch, etc, etc. and my ethnicity (country of origin, really), percentages for each are extremely accurate on ancestry.com. The same is true for my English, Irish, Polish, French, German, (etc), wife. > > They have built up a mathematically significant sized database, and dedicating increasingly larger amounts of processing power (mainly an iterative algorithm) to the problem and making very good progress. One of the problems with the concept of "nationality" is that it is fuzzy. With regard to ancestry, it is also very time-dependant. I can state with near certainty that measuring from 100 years ago, I am of 100 percent American ancestry, because all of my ancestors then living were natural born American citizens. I can also state with high confidence that measuring from a couple of million years ago, I am of 100 percent African ancestry (as are we all). With reasonable confidence (but more ambiguity), I can state that measuring from the year 1800, my ancestry was about 1/2 (or a bit more) American, 1/4 German, 1/8 English, and 1/16 "Irish" (i.e., Scotch-Irish, so presumably Scottish a century or two before that), perhaps also with a smidgen of Dutch (the latter a guess based solely on a surname). In the last case, gaps in documentation produce some uncertainty, but the percentages should still be close. Based on my autosomal DNA, the "My Origins" page at FamilyTreeDNA shows my ancestry as 60% British Isles, 31% Western and Central Europe, 6% Eastern Europe, and 3% Middle East, which isn't that far from what I would have guessed from my own research, although I have no idea where the Eastern European or Middle Eastern would come from. For my ca. 1600 ancestry, I would have guessed something like 2/3 British Isles and 1/3 Western and Central Europe, and other models give some different percentages. Such differences are not too surprising, given that we are trying to answer rather ambiguous questions using a science which by its nature is inexact and still in its infancy. However, it is not clear that the testing companies are adequately explaining these limitations to their customers. Stewart Baldwin

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 7:58:29 PM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > On 5/30/2016 7:38 PM, taf via wrote: > > > It is entirely inappropriate to argue that a paper supports your > > position without first reading it. > > Isn't arguing that a paper supports your position without first reading > it a time-honored principle of pseudogenealogy? Yes.

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 6:50:10 PM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > Based on my autosomal DNA, the "My Origins" page at > FamilyTreeDNA shows my ancestry as 60% British Isles, 31% Western and > Central Europe, 6% Eastern Europe, and 3% Middle East, which isn't that > far from what I would have guessed from my own research, although I have > no idea where the Eastern European or Middle Eastern would come from. These last categories are the same as with my uncle's analysis. About 3/4 or it was reasonable (if you posit that North German shows up in their analysis as Scandinavian), and the final 1/4 (Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, Middle East, all with huge error bars) is complete nonsense. The problems are highlighted by the Jefferson Y. The best known modern bearers in the US are socially African-American and genetically 'mixed-race', while it came to America in someone who was unambiguously English, yet it belongs to a haplogroup that is commonly referred to as being a marker for Jewish male-line ethnicity, even though it occurs at no higher frequency in Mizrahi Jews than in neighboring non-Jewish populations throughout the Middle East. The problem is that since the last glacial maximum human populations have not been isolated enough that any particular marker is exclusive to a single group, and the attempt to overlay individual SNP sets onto geographic regions that are all mixed at different proportions is statistically dubious. Along these lines, there is a new analysis of Britain that is to be published that shows there is a significant genetic strain missing from the current model. There has been a century-long debate over how much Celt vs how much Old Saxon ancestry contributed to the current Englishman, but the amount of 'steppe' ancestry in southeast Britain is higher than in either Celts or Old Saxons. Somehow another bloodline found its way in there. There is some speculation that it was non-Celt French brought by the Anglo-Normans, but I have to wonder if it isn't a remnant of the legions. As Mr. Tinney points out, though, this is not genealogy. taf

The silence following my mock-up has been deafening. How should I interpret this? Richard On 28/05/2016, Richard Carruthers <leliwite@gmail.com> wrote: > Richard Smith wrote: >>> I think it would greatly help us in understanding your proposal if you >>> mocked up a short section of this list, and then amplified on one (or a >>> few) of the entries so we could see what you propose the detailed >>> entries to look like. >> >> I shall get to my drawing board and work up some entries for this >> to model my proposal for such a listing. >> >> >>> Richard [Smith] >> >> Richard C-Z > > Herewith my mock-up: > > List of Landed, Manorial, or Gentry Families of England, Wales, and > the Pale of Ireland, arranged by county, and covering the period from > the Conquest to the Glorious Revolution (A.D. 1066-1688). Compiled by > sundry contributors. Project examples prepared 28 May 2016, by > Richard Carruthers-Żurowski, B.A. (Hons), Modern History, & M.A. > (Oxon.). All collegial suggestions welcomed. > > Example of a Simple Listing > > SUSSEX > > Surname Locality Date From Date To Rank Title Contributor > Source Research Pub. Var. > ERNLE Earnley ca 1166 1632 ext. LMG Esq. RHBC-Z WSRO > Yes Var. Yes > ERNLE Sidlesham 1345/6 ibid. do do do > Sx FF Yes do do > ERNLE W. Wittering ante 1632 ext. do do do > PCC Yes do do > > Source Detail (i.e. each entry’s justification), viz.: (could be made > a clickable hyperlink) > Line 1: WSRO Money-Kyrle ref. 1720/44 for Lucas de Erneleia fl. ca 1166 > Line 2: Sussex Fines: 16-20 Edward III, An abstract of Feet of Fines > for the County of Sussex, vol. 3: 1308-1509 (1916), no. 2003 for John > de Ernelee the elder/Margaret wife, fl. 1345/6 > > Explanation of the categories included in the simple listing. > > Surname: Main spelling chosen for the family for which there was an entry. > > Locality: Could be a manor, or parish, estate, city, etc. > > Date from: date of record, either precise or approximate, as based on > source citation. > > Date to: date of conclusion of study based on some sourced record. > This could be hyperlinked to an explanation (in this instance, > “Abstracts of probate acts in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, > vol. 1, 1630-1634, p. 146 [Anno 1632] ERNLE, Richard, of Cackham > (Cakeham, p. West Wittering), Sussex, Esq. Will [66 Audley] pr. June > 16 by rel. Susan. P. r. Eliz RISTON” > > To this the word ext. could be included indicating that the line is > apparently extinct in that locality at least at the date indicated, > based on research justified by the source citation associated with > that listing. If this were not the case, some other explanation could > be provided on the date source page. > > N.B. if no date is yet included for the beginning of the period, the > word ante indicating that some period prior to the date included as > the terminus would be inserted. > > Rank: L for Landed, M for Manorial, G for Gentry. One or more would > have to be chosen as justified by the source(s) cited. > > Research: Example of instance where a name in the simple listing is > marked Yes (as being researched). > > The Yes would be highlighted and hyperlinked to another page showing > the contributor’s name and contact information if so desired. This > opens the possibility of monetising the project and charging a small > fee for access to this information by non-contributors. Just > how this might be made to work is something on which one would have to > take advice, and, > of course, need the agreement of contributors. There could be a sort > of blind email address for contributors who did not want their > personal email address or other particulars given out before they had > had a chance to read any message sent and decide on its bona fides. > This is done by the Guild of One-Name Studies (GOONS) for example. > > Pub. (for Publications): an indication that one or more items about > the family listed have been published. The precise publications could > be listed elsewhere and access to that list (which may or may not > necessarily be exhaustive, of course, given human frailties, and the > fact that the list of publications may grow with new discoveries of > missing items, or indeed the inclusion of new publications. > > Var. (for Variants): all names are variants as they derive from > possible representations of sounds indicative of a particular family. > Here, however, the word Yes in this category would > indicate that there are known and specific variants of which this > entry may be deemed to be a > primary, but not necessarily a sole, entry. The primary entry or > entries (say, for example, ERNLE, ERNLEY, and ERNELEY) would be > allowed to appear in the Listing based on the use of that spelling or > spellings of the name indicated either by some justifying reason such > as that that spelling is found extensively in the literature, citing > where and when, or because it is the spelling associated with a modern > family using that variant whose pedigree can be corroborated as linked > to the name in the entry. This would obviously involve some work to > provide reasonable justification, and could lead to legitimate > differences of opinion, which could be made explicit elsewhere in the > project’s hyperlinked pages. > > So elsewhere in the Listing for the county in question there could be > subsidiary variant spellings given, with the date, and justification > for that entry, e.g. > > Ernele > > (de) Ernelee > > (de) Erneleia > > The preposition de would appear in parentheses where the family found > under that spelling > was later found without it as having dropped its use. Ditto series of > prefixed words such as (or series of prefixed words as in (de la) > Estcourt, Where the preposition or prefixed words appeared in the name > over time and were generally retained there would be no parentheses. > Names would, however, be sorted by their substantive part, as in Ernle > and Estcourt. > > One could include as many variants as were justified by citing at > least one source. > > There could also be deviant spellings included, such as Early for > Ernle where the ‘n’-less form can be clearly shown to be a case of > usage for a person belonging to a family normally referred to under > another a true variant. > > Var. could also be used to denote cases where a family, for example, > Arundel or FitzAlan is referred to by more than one surname over time, > and is nonetheless recognisably the same family. Of course, this could > give rise to further debate, but that would be allowed for via other > hyperlinked pages associated with the project as it develops. > > The development of more complex pages derived from the simple listing > entries for surnames associated with a locality, by county, is > something that can be considered later when the need arises. Indeed, > someone else may want to jump in here with their suggestions. > > I should note that I limited the number of categories in the simple > listing based in part on the page margins I am currently dealing with. > Still, unless someone points out an obvious lacuna in my example, I > think it is a fair representation of what may deemed a useful sort of > listing which could serve as a sort of mediaeval and early modern > genealogical research directory for families of these levels of > society. > > Your thoughts are welcome, but please be collegially gentle with me!;) > > Thank you, > > Richard C-Z:) >