Tony - Yes, to you and other list members this is only too obvious. However, it is amazing the desperate claims that some wanting people will make, and tricks they play, in attempts to link themselves to notable people. The question they should ask themselves is whether or not they are descended by BLOOD. As an instance, I am a blood relative of Rev. Sydney Smith's wife, a PYBUS, but not of him. (Although working on it, I believe there is a good but unproven possibility of a blood link between his and my Smiths in Northants; Smith is not the most easy of names to work on!). The most I could claim is that he is 'a connection' of mine. If I print out my tree in full the topmost name is SMITH and the last JONES, which keeps me firmly in my place. From one who has ag. labs, farriers, millers, murderers and pornographers in his tree. Yours Aye Andrew Sellon East Anglia She seems to suppose, because she has dedicated her mind to the subject, that her opinion must necessarily be valuable upon it; forgetting it to be barely possible that her application may have made her more wrong. Rev. Sydney Smith 1771-1854, Canon of St. Paul's From: "Tony Fuller" <[email protected]> > > Perhaps I'm stating the obvious here but if somebody adopts a child after the death of her husband - who would, by virtue of the laws of nature, physics even common sense (which I appreciate might not be too common) never have seen the child, except in some post mortem, cosmological way - how can the child claim to be a child of the marriage (which is dissolved with the death of the partner) and surely any descendants of that child cannot claim the male - DEAD - person as an ancestor. > > They may have inherited a name, but that is all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Doesn't mean that they are his descendants at all, just her legal descendants. >