On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 1:15:38 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:54:16 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:48:08 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:45:08 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:36:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:30:49 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 19:55:36 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 00:14:17 UTC+1, John Higgins escreveu: > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:04:57 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This book claims that Dorothy merely "came from Beeston" (a place in Nottinghamshire, not Cheshire). It cites "Major Lawson Lowe's" manuscripts at the University of Nottingham (apparently). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=qYFnAAAAMAAJ&q=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&dq=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidy43E6u3VAhUJQSYKHUeUDQIQ6AEILTAB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A useful find... This would indicate that the pedigree in the 1662 Notts visitation confused Beeston, Notts, with Beeston, Cheshire, and then just assumed that Dorothy was of the Beeston family. Of course any royal descent for Henry Gregory would go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also perhaps there would still be a royal descent through Maud Moton wife of John Gregory and daughter of Roger Moton. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maud if she every existed at all, had no royal lineage however > > > > > > > > Her mother is wholely unknown, and her father was a low-level nobody > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wasn't Roger maternal grandson of Baron Ralph Basset? > > > > > > > > > > > > No > > > > > > > > > > Could you please tell me your sources and reasons for that? > > > > > > > > There are no sources which state it, and therefore it is false. > > > > Geni is not a source. Online trees created by mad idiots, are not sources. > > > > > > > > If you insist on continuing with your silly crusade you're going to get more of the same remarks. Stop Posting Garbage From Worthless Sources. > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > I use Geni in medieval and ancient pedigrees as a starting point then through their references I can check more trustworthy sources like Medieval Lands. > > > > And in this case, you used Geni and realized that the person who posted that nonsense was completely nuts. > > Also I didn't use Geni for this I used Fabpedigree I know I am in doubtful lineages in some parts of Fabpedigree as the owner my friend James Allen says the info in his database is not to be taken as authoritive and asks us to use it as starting point and check some of the most reputable sources he uses and he does list them in his credits page I myself am mentioned there as a correspondent. James Allen is one of the more credulous creators of piles of mythical nonsense. Why can't you just take my advice and STOP USING ONLINE TREES to do ANY research whatsoever. The vast majority of information in online trees is utter and complete rubbish There is really *zero* need for you to use *any* of it. Throw it all out, purge yourself, and start from useful books

Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 21:31:07 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 1:15:38 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:54:16 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:48:08 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:45:08 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:36:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:30:49 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 19:55:36 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 00:14:17 UTC+1, John Higgins escreveu: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:04:57 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This book claims that Dorothy merely "came from Beeston" (a place in Nottinghamshire, not Cheshire). It cites "Major Lawson Lowe's" manuscripts at the University of Nottingham (apparently). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=qYFnAAAAMAAJ&q=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&dq=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidy43E6u3VAhUJQSYKHUeUDQIQ6AEILTAB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A useful find... This would indicate that the pedigree in the 1662 Notts visitation confused Beeston, Notts, with Beeston, Cheshire, and then just assumed that Dorothy was of the Beeston family. Of course any royal descent for Henry Gregory would go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also perhaps there would still be a royal descent through Maud Moton wife of John Gregory and daughter of Roger Moton. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maud if she every existed at all, had no royal lineage however > > > > > > > > > Her mother is wholely unknown, and her father was a low-level nobody > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wasn't Roger maternal grandson of Baron Ralph Basset? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please tell me your sources and reasons for that? > > > > > > > > > > There are no sources which state it, and therefore it is false. > > > > > Geni is not a source. Online trees created by mad idiots, are not sources. > > > > > > > > > > If you insist on continuing with your silly crusade you're going to get more of the same remarks. Stop Posting Garbage From Worthless Sources. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > I use Geni in medieval and ancient pedigrees as a starting point then through their references I can check more trustworthy sources like Medieval Lands. > > > > > > And in this case, you used Geni and realized that the person who posted that nonsense was completely nuts. > > > > Also I didn't use Geni for this I used Fabpedigree I know I am in doubtful lineages in some parts of Fabpedigree as the owner my friend James Allen says the info in his database is not to be taken as authoritive and asks us to use it as starting point and check some of the most reputable sources he uses and he does list them in his credits page I myself am mentioned there as a correspondent. > > James Allen is one of the more credulous creators of piles of mythical nonsense. > > Why can't you just take my advice and STOP USING ONLINE TREES to do ANY research whatsoever. The vast majority of information in online trees is utter and complete rubbish > > There is really *zero* need for you to use *any* of it. > Throw it all out, purge yourself, and start from useful books No offense but now you are starting to look like an extremist. Then perhaps even Genealogics can be discarded as rubbish because it is also a tree.