On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 8:48:02 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > My thanks to taf and John Watson for their posts. > > Can I take it that both of you agree that at least the standard > genealogy needs to be considered as less likely to be correct than the > one proposed by Clarence-Smith? I would not put my position that strong without reading or rereading the scholarly underpinnings of the 'preferred' version and C-S's alternative. I would say that anyone who draws a conclusion based solely on landholding (as opposed to documented inheritance) without taking the possibility of enfeoffment into account, has left a noteworthy gap in their analysis. taf