> > Then there are family historians - good-hearted people who > > sometimes (sometimes is a key word here) waive commonly accepted > > rules of genealogy to please family and friends. This includes the > > righteous among us who properly insist on bloodlines but who will be > > in for a few disappointments when DNA testing is universal. > > > > J. Hugh Sullivan <[email protected]> > > Your above comment (extracted from the full post), made me laugh out > loud as I recalled my kin folks' reaction to the discovery I had > made that proved the maternal GrGrandfather was illegitimate. While > the kin folks knew this to be true, they did not want such records > available for public use (the record was found at NARA) and they > certainly did not want "the kid" knowing of and discussing this part > of the family history. Many offers were made to me---payments if > you will----to withhold that information. > > Your lines above gave me a good walk down memory lane. > > Thank you. > > "Fred Frederick" <[email protected]> You're welcome. I've always had a bit of a problem with self-righteous purists who ridiculed irrefutable logic but insisted their line all the way back to 1066 was based on absolute proof. It is as if they gave all the mommas lie detector tests. And how do they know when some lady raised her sister's children after she passed. Some of the old records may be inspired writing but I think the source of inspiration might be suspect in some cases. My gg grandfather had at least 4 children with three ladies before the circuit rider came by or poppa loaded his shotgun, whichever came first. That wasn't me so I have no embarrassment about the facts - in fact, I call him Stud. 8-) For people who think male/ female uh, ahem, friendships are a current phenomenon they need to read some of the old Bastardy Bonds. Some ladies said "Oops" several times. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)