I can certainly understand that there would be a level of uncertainty in the case you mention since the "witness" was a child, and the misunderstanding was over something technical, property ownership. In my situation, my great-grandmother lived with us for the last six years of her life and died when I was nineteen. We were extremely close, and I can easily recall twenty or more specific references that she made to her childhood, her family, her mother's full maiden name, as well as stories of her maternal grandmother and her family (which is important since both of these women are the Mayflower "line carriers"). Not being interested in formal genealogy at the time, I never thought to ask her to write anything down, and, when she finally died, an ignorant uncle served as the informant on her death certificate and couldn't give her parents' names. Basically, my line is documented from the Mayflower passenger down to her mother, and from her down to me. The only link without paper documentation is her link and thus my link to her mother. I can prove her maiden name, birthdate and birthplace, and censuses show her living in the household of her parents. I also have a letter to her from her sister, who also is shown in the census, but lacks the names of her parents on her death certificate as well. There are also no marriage certificates on file for either woman, since the town they lived in did not keep records until the early 1900s. What's crazy with the way the Mayflower Society works is that I could write down everything she told me first hand in a spiral notebook, and 5 generations from now, someone could join on the basis of this information! I also have to say that the fact that none of the representatives of the Mayflower Society subscribed to this list have stepped forward with an explanation for these inconsistencies in policy only assures me that there probably is no explanation. llscott2000@worldnet.att.net writes: > Personal knowledge can be decieving. > I wrote a research paper about a community > that existed in our area for about 10 years. > When my paper was read by the daughter of the > founder, who was a child resident at the time, > she was indigant (sp) that I did not have her > father as the owner of the property he sold. > Actually he was only an agent for the paper > company that owned the land. My information > came from the courthouse. Her info came from > the remembrances of a small child.