On 20/05/2017 7:53 AM, taf wrote: > On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 2:31:29 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote: >> Dear John, normally I would agree with you about conjecturing, however the >> Despsner pedigree has been so difficult for everyone who have tried to pin >> it down, even in 2003/2004 John Ravilous even coined this pedigree as the >> "Holy Grail of Genealogy" for good reason. It's difficult, and tantalizing >> little info or records to go on, yet they rose to prominance. This genealogy >> requires a different approach and if I have to post conjectured lines which >> to me make perfect sense then that's what I will, in the hope someone sees >> something that stikes a memory or connection to advance this pedigree. > Over-the-top rhetoric aside, there is nothing special about this line, and no requirement for a different approach. Conjecture is part of the standard approach, but it should not be made on a whim and it should be clearly and explicitly marked and explained as such (and I mean the specific connections, not just a label at the top calling the whole tree conjectural without indicating what is and what isn't). Such conjectures tend to take on a life of their own, even when well marked, so one should exercise extreme care in presenting them, and absolutely should make it abundantly what is deduction and what is speculation and what is outright guesswork. > Well said - there is no value at all in genealogical conjecture that isn't backed up by reasoning from evidence. As for the over-the-top rhetoric about the "Holy Grail", this is another example of a blinkered British-first-and-foremost approach to medieval genealogy. In terms of the depth and breadth of interest, or consequence, the Despencer pedigree isn't even remotely close to DFA (and as someone who doesn't pursue either of these, or the lurid concept of a "Holy Grail" of research in the first place, I am not insisting on any relative-favourite topic). Peter Stewart