On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 4:32:31 PM UTC-7, Michael OHearn wrote: > > That is the "other alternative" to genetic inheritance by a group > *specifically brought into Gaul BY the Romans*... > > Since there is no factual basis for marital infidelity BEFORE Richard III > among his paternal line which btw goes back to Gaul, these are the > alternatives. So take your pick please. > This is flawed on so many levels. It establishes a huge pair of false dichotomies. First, the choices are not either 1) brought by the Romans, or 2) the Alans - there are numerous other possibilities. More importantly, you have set up a dichotomy between 1) there is proof the evidence of infidelity was in Richard's line, or else 2) there was no infidelity in Richard's line all the way back to pre-Roman times. More to the point, to say that 'there is no factual basis for infidelity before Richard, so there wasn't any' is a completely flawed argument. We can't show the infidelity was in Richard's line, but we likewise can't say it was in the Beaufort line. Yet is had to be in one or the other (if not both), and we have no evidence that enables us to determine which. It just doesn't fly to simply pick which side you want to be the true line and conclude that it is based on the absence of evidence for infidelity in that line. taf