---- Richard Smith <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote: > On 24/08/17 20:44, norenxaq@san.rr.com wrote: > > > > ---- wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> 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 > > > > this does not automatically preclude a royal ancestry > > You may possibly be talking at cross purposes here. Maud may well have > had royal ancestry if you were able to go back four or five centuries. > In some ways it would be surprising if she didn't. But the point Will > Johnson is making is that at the moment there's no sign of any surviving > evidence that would allow us to determine what if any royal descent she > may have. Unless and until we can document exactly how she is descended > from royalty, genealogically speaking she has no royal descent. > Genealogy is about specific, documented descents, not statistical (or, > worse, hand-waving) arguments on the likelihood of descent. understood. however, stating an absolute based on class doesn't necessarily follow. THAT was my point > > By all means keep looking. Perhaps her mother's identity can be found. > Perhaps her father is less insignificant that at first it seems. But > you can't simply conjure a royal descent out of nowhere. true Discovering > and properly documenting a new royal descent can take years of sedulous > and often fruitless work. It took me thirty years and innumerable dead > ends before I finally got there. understood