Thanks for pointing that out, Stewart. Are we safe in adding Lewis Latham (Charles I's falconer) to the family, as long as we dismiss the previous generations? (For some reason, I get a kick out of this connection.) Mark P.S. BTW, listers, I've just bought and read Stewart Baldwin's examination of the often-confusing Simcock family in the spring 2004 issue of The Genealogist and recommend it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> To: <QUAKER-ROOTS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:09 AM Subject: Re: [Q-R] Medieval lines of Ruth Large, Bucks County > On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 18:20:15 -0500, you wrote: > > >Herbert (and friends), the supposed medieval line begins with Frances LATHAM > >(1609-1677), the (alleged) mother of Thomas DUNGAN who married Elizabeth > >WEAVER. From Frances, this line goes straight back to a Lord Henry DE > >LATHAM (b. ca. 1100) -- with, of course, lots of collateral lines. > > > >Here's what I found: http://home.bak.rr.com/dhamilton1/tdsg15.htm#2211. > >(From here, just keep clicking "parents" until you end up at Lord Henry.) > > There are some serious "red flags" here, including, for example, a > supposed 80+ year difference between two "consecutive" generations. > Although American immigrants with royal ancestry do exist (including > some Quakers), the vast majority of such claimed royal or early > medieval ancestries are false. (The best I can do for medieval > ancestry of my own Quaker ancestors is the middle of the 1400's). > > Stewart Baldwin > > > > ==== QUAKER-ROOTS Mailing List ==== > Need assistance? Please contact:Quaker-Roots-L-Admin@RootsWeb.com > List Manager for Quaker-Roots-L and Quaker-Roots-D > Now with over 750 subscribers >