Kathy, No, I never meant to say that the person in question could not prove her lineage. I only asked her to PROVE her lineage back to William the Conquorer, Charlemagne and the person known as Jesus. That's quite a feat. And she can't PROVE anything. Just because is it in some book is not proof. Call me a skeptic. In reality, almost of us will be quite lucky to get back to the 1500s, when records for the masses began. All this tripe about anything before that time is what I suppose really galls me, especially when accompanied with no documentation other than "it is in a book." Guess what? I can write a book too. Does that mean it's true? Of course not. Therein is my whole point. On Jan 6, 2009, at 12:20 PM, <rebeltrumpet@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > I am glad to hear that. I thought you were seriously saying > that she/anyone couldn't really prove their lineage. I do also > understand > that books such as the Mayflower books, and the other books I > listed, have > had errors. Usually they come out with books showing the > corrections. > New > material is still found continuously. So, I guess seriously that > DNA is > probably > the most reliable source there can be. > Glad that we can agree to be agreeable ;~) > Kathy. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Craig Kilby" <persisto@earthlink.net> > To: <vaculpep@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:31 AM > Subject: [VACULPEP] Prove It > > >> All I ever asked or said was >> >> PROVE IT >> >> That is not being disagreeable. >> >> Regarding the the post about Mayflower descendancy. There are >> probably about 25 million US citizens, many on this board, who have >> descent from this group. And it can be proved, just as the poster >> explained. And also as the poster explained, she had to document >> each and every step along the way. She did. >> >> One does not prove an argument simply by saying "it is in a book." >> >> That was, is and always be my whole point. That is not being >> disagreeable. >> >> If you are familiar with TV show "HOUSE", I am HOUSE. >> >> I do not suffer fools gladly, and fools by no means suffer me. >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> VACULPEP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

That's nothing, they have my father born 1910 and mother born 1914 as the parents of the ancestor that I posted about trying to check DNA. He of course was born about 1737. I have email Ancestry over and over and they won't change it.

Craig,    You still don't get it. The royal stuff is done by research  by Gary Boyd Roberts and William Addams Reitwiesner that does genealogy on all Presidents and Vice Presidents. Have you read any of Gary Boyd Roberts work ?  He has also researched the early colonists of New England and Virginia.  It  is called research  just as  you would do only the research is put in a book.   As far as Jesus I am His child and He is my Heavenly Father. And I certainly am glad to have that.   Marianne Dillow     n Tue, 1/6/09, Craig Kilby <persisto@earthlink.net> wrote: From: Craig Kilby <persisto@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [VACULPEP] Prove It To: vaculpep@rootsweb.com Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 11:36 AM Kathy, No, I never meant to say that the person in question could not prove her lineage. I only asked her to PROVE her lineage back to William the Conquorer, Charlemagne and the person known as Jesus. That's quite a feat. And she can't PROVE anything. Just because is it in some book is not proof. Call me a skeptic. In reality, almost of us will be quite lucky to get back to the 1500s, when records for the masses began. All this tripe about anything before that time is what I suppose really galls me, especially when accompanied with no documentation other than "it is in a book." Guess what? I can write a book too. Does that mean it's true? Of course not. Therein is my whole point. On Jan 6, 2009, at 12:20 PM, <rebeltrumpet@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > I am glad to hear that. I thought you were seriously saying > that she/anyone couldn't really prove their lineage. I do also > understand > that books such as the Mayflower books, and the other books I > listed, have > had errors. Usually they come out with books showing the > corrections. > New > material is still found continuously. So, I guess seriously that > DNA is > probably > the most reliable source there can be. > Glad that we can agree to be agreeable ;~) > Kathy. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Craig Kilby" <persisto@earthlink.net> > To: vaculpep@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:31 AM > Subject: [VACULPEP] Prove It > > >> All I ever asked or said was >> >> PROVE IT >> >> That is not being disagreeable. >> >> Regarding the the post about Mayflower descendancy. There are >> probably about 25 million US citizens, many on this board, who have >> descent from this group. And it can be proved, just as the poster >> explained. And also as the poster explained, she had to document >> each and every step along the way. She did. >> >> One does not prove an argument simply by saying "it is in a book." >> >> That was, is and always be my whole point. That is not being >> disagreeable. >> >> If you are familiar with TV show "HOUSE", I am HOUSE. >> >> I do not suffer fools gladly, and fools by no means suffer me. >> >> -------------------------------   

All I ever asked or said was PROVE IT That is not being disagreeable. Regarding the the post about Mayflower descendancy. There are probably about 25 million US citizens, many on this board, who have descent from this group. And it can be proved, just as the poster explained. And also as the poster explained, she had to document each and every step along the way. She did. One does not prove an argument simply by saying "it is in a book." That was, is and always be my whole point. That is not being disagreeable. If you are familiar with TV show "HOUSE", I am HOUSE. I do not suffer fools gladly, and fools by no means suffer me.

I am glad to hear that. I thought you were seriously saying that she/anyone couldn't really prove their lineage. I do also understand that books such as the Mayflower books, and the other books I listed, have had errors. Usually they come out with books showing the corrections. New material is still found continuously. So, I guess seriously that DNA is probably the most reliable source there can be. Glad that we can agree to be agreeable ;~) Kathy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Kilby" <persisto@earthlink.net> To: <vaculpep@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:31 AM Subject: [VACULPEP] Prove It > All I ever asked or said was > > PROVE IT > > That is not being disagreeable. > > Regarding the the post about Mayflower descendancy. There are > probably about 25 million US citizens, many on this board, who have > descent from this group. And it can be proved, just as the poster > explained. And also as the poster explained, she had to document > each and every step along the way. She did. > > One does not prove an argument simply by saying "it is in a book." > > That was, is and always be my whole point. That is not being > disagreeable. > > If you are familiar with TV show "HOUSE", I am HOUSE. > > I do not suffer fools gladly, and fools by no means suffer me. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > VACULPEP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Marge,   I was just advocating it in case of one running out of records. Unfortunately we have too many burnt counties because of war or courthouse fires, etc. That really gets frustrating.   Best Wishes, Marianne --- On Tue, 1/6/09, Marge <msealock@mchsi.com> wrote: From: Marge <msealock@mchsi.com> Subject: Re: [VACULPEP] It's all relative To: vaculpep@rootsweb.com Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 7:40 AM DNA is wonderful. But in some cases it doesn't help. Our family's earliest ancestor was first recorded in 1763 when he married. He was an orphan and was given his surname. All efforts to find ANY name of that ilk have been fruitless. Even trips to England etc. Now we took a DNA test of our oldest available descendant. That was almost seven months ago. We have yet to come across a surname that matches even to 2 markers off. So..DNA is fine when you have some type of match in your surname line, but boy it sure doesn't help if you can't find a match in ANY surname. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Kathy,    I think that is wonderful that you have proven your lineage. In reference to Craig , no he isn't kidding and neither am I.  I once sent him a report off list on another line from my Family Tree Maker. That is exactly what he  wants. If he is a professional genealogist go to the courthouses and get the legal records like I did and prove it. Otherwise, I wouldn't hire him in a New York minute.   LOL !   Best Wishes, Mariianne Dillow     -- On Tue, 1/6/09, rebeltrumpet@sbcglobal.net <rebeltrumpet@sbcglobal.net> wrote: From: rebeltrumpet@sbcglobal.net <rebeltrumpet@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Re: [VACULPEP] It's all relative To: vaculpep@rootsweb.com, mdillow31@verizon.net Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 10:07 AM I am guessing that Craig is teasing....surely?? If not, as an example of my lines, they are all in New England and they kept excellent records in New England from the day the Mayflower landed to me. I have 17 proven lines of descent from the Mayflower. I had to prove WITH DOCUMENTATION all of these lines, and they were approved by the Mayflower Society. On another of my proven lines going back to 1600s there are several books such as "Ancestral Roots", and "The Magna Charta Sureties 1215", and "Charlemagnes Descendants" that are used. I found that ancestor in one of the books, and from there the lines connect further and further back. In those books, the best and most professional genealogists and researchers in the world put together the proven lineages using all of the old records of England, France, and many countries. I would venture to guess that most of us have at least one or two lines in those books. The hard part sometimes is getting that far back (about 1600s). I have worked on my husbands lines which are all southern. Unfortunately I can't get any further back than about 1795 on most of his. I know it is frustrating, but you can't say that others lines are not true simply because you can not find one yet. Just keep digging and maybe a line will open up for you also. Kathy.

Craig,    The records I have on my Family Tree Maker are copies  of original records and legal ones. Get over it.  It took me a long time to even get them on there. And this list dioes not accept attachments or I would send it to the entire list. Again, I said "legal" records from the counties and states involved not something out of a  book. I refuse to be intinimidated by you.   Marianne Dillow --- On Tue, 1/6/09, Craig Kilby <persisto@earthlink.net> wrote: From: Craig Kilby <persis   to@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [VACULPEP] It's all relative To: mdillow31@verizon.net, vaculpep@rootsweb.com Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 7:32 AM Marianne: Because something is in your Family Tree Maker program and database doesn't prove anything. You have plastered this list with all sorts of fantastic claims. I have no doubt that you believe it all to be true. Show me why we should believe any of it. Just the facts Ma'am, just the facts CMK On Jan 6, 2009, at 2:15 AM, marianne dillow wrote: > > Hi Craig, > > Well the wills proves it all. They are on my Family Tree Maker.

Hi Roy,   Thank you you for your kind remarks.  I certainly am in favor of DNA testing when one runs out of legal records, etc. Unfortunately I can't copy and paste from Family Tree Maker. I wish I could because I would send it to this list. I take my genealogy very seriously. I want to leave it for my family members. If it can't be proven it is called a theory. Unfortunately we all have brick walls we have trouble knocking down.   Best Wishes, Marianne Dillow   --- On Tue, 1/6/09, Hist Docs <gendocs@msn.com> wrote: From: Hist Docs <gendocs@msn.com> Subject: Re: [VACULPEP] It's all relative To: mdillow31@verizon.net, vaculpep@rootsweb.com Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 5:31 AM AMEN!    I began research in 1980 and thanks to the e-revolution in genealogy I now find that, not only do I have 37 third-generation grandparents (according to Rootsweb posters my paternal ggrandfather had 5 different mothers), I find that I also am my own grandfather and that my ggrandfather was born 5 years AFTER my grandfather!  How quaint.  Very valid points Marianne.   Craig, IMO, also makes the same point with his statement "show me."  As I remind my wife when she sometimes get carried away with new "information" ( insert my disdain for the "quick honey - copy everything they have on Rootsweb and paste it on our page" set) - "genealogy without proof is nothing more than a list of names."    Roy     ----- Original Message ----- From: marianne dillow To: VACULPEP@rootsweb.com Sent: January 06, 2009 2:15 AM Subject: Re: [VACULPEP] It's all relative . I have been doing genealogy the hard way since 1982. That doesn't mean copying from the internet as many do. It means starting with cemetaries, records from courthouses, out of state trips to state archives and libraries, church records, etc. I wish more on Rootsweb would do the same and quit posting everything someone else as on the internet. Records and DNA proves lineages. And that is called real genealogy and really is the fun of it. :) Marianne Dillow

I am guessing that Craig is teasing....surely?? If not, as an example of my lines, they are all in New England and they kept excellent records in New England from the day the Mayflower landed to me. I have 17 proven lines of descent from the Mayflower. I had to prove WITH DOCUMENTATION all of these lines, and they were approved by the Mayflower Society. On another of my proven lines going back to 1600s there are several books such as "Ancestral Roots", and "The Magna Charta Sureties 1215", and "Charlemagnes Descendants" that are used. I found that ancestor in one of the books, and from there the lines connect further and further back. In those books, the best and most professional genealogists and researchers in the world put together the proven lineages using all of the old records of England, France, and many countries. I would venture to guess that most of us have at least one or two lines in those books. The hard part sometimes is getting that far back (about 1600s). I have worked on my husbands lines which are all southern. Unfortunately I can't get any further back than about 1795 on most of his. I know it is frustrating, but you can't say that others lines are not true simply because you can not find one yet. Just keep digging and maybe a line will open up for you also. Kathy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Kilby" <persisto@earthlink.net> To: <mdillow31@verizon.net>; <vaculpep@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [VACULPEP] It's all relative > I'm from Missouri, so you will have to show me your documentation and > how you have proved all of this. Your move. > > On Jan 6, 2009, at 1:15 AM, marianne dillow wrote: > >> Hi Craig, >> >> It is proven all the way from me through my Mother's lines by >> wills and other records. That is all that is required... records,.. >> wills, etc. I have a will on each generation etc. That is called >> genealogy and research. Have a good day :) >> >> Marianne Dillow >> >> >> --- On Tue, 1/6/09, Craig Kilby <persisto@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> From: Craig Kilby <persisto@earthlink.net> >> Subject: It's all relative >> To: mdillow31@verizon.net, vaculpep@rootsweb.com >> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 12:11 AM >> >> >> I think this was the whole point. I could go to Walmart and run >> into a ninth cousin without either of us even knowing it. All this >> talk about being descendants of King so-and-so or Adam and Eve is >> just so much talk. As my favorite researcher likes to say: >> >> >> PROVE IT >> >> >> Craig Kilby >> >> >> >> On Jan 6, 2009, at 12:55 AM, marianne dillow wrote: >> >> >> I am the one who posted about Barack Obama and myself being 9th >> cousins through Conway, Eltonhead, Thacker grandparents in Virginia. >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP- >> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > VACULPEP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I can ignore people who have views on genealogy that are different from mine. I too might take with a grain of salt the claims of exalted genealogies all the way back to Adam and wonder, really, what's the point? Since I am not familiar with the royal genealogies in Europe, it might be quit possible that some lines are traceable all the way back to the Plantagenets. I don't know. What I cannot take is someone who uses this group as a place to personally attack those whose views are different from their own. Such snide and offensive attacks have no place in this public forum. You need to learn to disagree without being so disagreeable. Nancy ------- I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days. --Daniel Boone

I don't know any of the people involved in this discussion, but these types of emails push the envelope of courtesy in these "geneaology" discussions. Craig, I would love to hear more about your Blackwell studies. I'm sure you have terrific proof of all your other forefathers/mothers. And truly, I don't care if there's a will or not. I would just like to know who begat who and if there's extra info on them, yeah! I'm far more interested in those who came from lower means because I have a feeling that's where my ancestors will fall. Everyone seems to have famous roots and that's just great. But I'm very intrigued by the great stories that some of our illustrious, notorious kin left behind. My 4th great-granduncle was the last man hanged in Wise County, Virginia. Now THAT's interesting! Debbie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Kilby" <persisto@earthlink.net> To: <vaculpep@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [VACULPEP] It's all relative >I always enjoy the people who say "Let's get back to geneaolgy" > > Yes, that is where we started. > > To the best of my knowledge, neither Jesus the Christ (surname > unknown) nor William the Conqueror (surname unknown) left a will. > > I would like to see the evidence for descent from either one of these > two men. > > That is genealogy, and a perfectly good topic for discussion on this > list.. > > We never got off of genealogy. To say "Let's get back to geneaolgy" > is a sophomoric non starter. > > > On Jan 6, 2009, at 9:24 AM, Sunshine49 wrote: > >> oh please, can we take this private, this is a place for genealogy, >> not venting one's Ego [did so! did not! did so!]. >> >> Nancy >> >> ------- >> I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days. >> >> --Daniel Boone >> >> >> >> On Jan 6, 2009, at 1:38 AM, Craig Kilby wrote: >> >>> I'm from Missouri, so you will have to show me your documentation and >>> how you have proved all of this. Your move. >>> >>> On Jan 6, 2009, at 1:15 AM, marianne dillow wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Craig, >>>> >>>> It is proven all the way from me through my Mother's lines by >>>> wills and other records. That is all that is required... records,.. >>>> wills, etc. I have a will on each generation etc. That is called >>>> genealogy and research. Have a good day :) >>>> >>>> Marianne Dillow >>>> >>>> >>>> --- On Tue, 1/6/09, Craig Kilby <persisto@earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Craig Kilby <persisto@earthlink.net> >>>> Subject: It's all relative >>>> To: mdillow31@verizon.net, vaculpep@rootsweb.com >>>> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 12:11 AM >>>> >>>> >>>> I think this was the whole point. I could go to Walmart and run >>>> into a ninth cousin without either of us even knowing it. All this >>>> talk about being descendants of King so-and-so or Adam and Eve is >>>> just so much talk. As my favorite researcher likes to say: >>>> >>>> >>>> PROVE IT >>>> >>>> >>>> Craig Kilby >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 6, 2009, at 12:55 AM, marianne dillow wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I am the one who posted about Barack Obama and myself being 9th >>>> cousins through Conway, Eltonhead, Thacker grandparents in Virginia. >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP- >>>> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>>> in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP- >>> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>> in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP- >> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > VACULPEP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I always enjoy the people who say "Let's get back to geneaolgy" Yes, that is where we started. To the best of my knowledge, neither Jesus the Christ (surname unknown) nor William the Conqueror (surname unknown) left a will. I would like to see the evidence for descent from either one of these two men. That is genealogy, and a perfectly good topic for discussion on this list.. We never got off of genealogy. To say "Let's get back to geneaolgy" is a sophomoric non starter. On Jan 6, 2009, at 9:24 AM, Sunshine49 wrote: > oh please, can we take this private, this is a place for genealogy, > not venting one's Ego [did so! did not! did so!]. > > Nancy > > ------- > I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days. > > --Daniel Boone > > > > On Jan 6, 2009, at 1:38 AM, Craig Kilby wrote: > >> I'm from Missouri, so you will have to show me your documentation and >> how you have proved all of this. Your move. >> >> On Jan 6, 2009, at 1:15 AM, marianne dillow wrote: >> >>> Hi Craig, >>> >>> It is proven all the way from me through my Mother's lines by >>> wills and other records. That is all that is required... records,.. >>> wills, etc. I have a will on each generation etc. That is called >>> genealogy and research. Have a good day :) >>> >>> Marianne Dillow >>> >>> >>> --- On Tue, 1/6/09, Craig Kilby <persisto@earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>> From: Craig Kilby <persisto@earthlink.net> >>> Subject: It's all relative >>> To: mdillow31@verizon.net, vaculpep@rootsweb.com >>> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 12:11 AM >>> >>> >>> I think this was the whole point. I could go to Walmart and run >>> into a ninth cousin without either of us even knowing it. All this >>> talk about being descendants of King so-and-so or Adam and Eve is >>> just so much talk. As my favorite researcher likes to say: >>> >>> >>> PROVE IT >>> >>> >>> Craig Kilby >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 6, 2009, at 12:55 AM, marianne dillow wrote: >>> >>> >>> I am the one who posted about Barack Obama and myself being 9th >>> cousins through Conway, Eltonhead, Thacker grandparents in Virginia. >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP- >>> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>> in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP- >> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

oh please, can we take this private, this is a place for genealogy, not venting one's Ego [did so! did not! did so!]. Nancy ------- I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days. --Daniel Boone On Jan 6, 2009, at 1:38 AM, Craig Kilby wrote: > I'm from Missouri, so you will have to show me your documentation and > how you have proved all of this. Your move. > > On Jan 6, 2009, at 1:15 AM, marianne dillow wrote: > >> Hi Craig, >> >> It is proven all the way from me through my Mother's lines by >> wills and other records. That is all that is required... records,.. >> wills, etc. I have a will on each generation etc. That is called >> genealogy and research. Have a good day :) >> >> Marianne Dillow >> >> >> --- On Tue, 1/6/09, Craig Kilby <persisto@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> From: Craig Kilby <persisto@earthlink.net> >> Subject: It's all relative >> To: mdillow31@verizon.net, vaculpep@rootsweb.com >> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 12:11 AM >> >> >> I think this was the whole point. I could go to Walmart and run >> into a ninth cousin without either of us even knowing it. All this >> talk about being descendants of King so-and-so or Adam and Eve is >> just so much talk. As my favorite researcher likes to say: >> >> >> PROVE IT >> >> >> Craig Kilby >> >> >> >> On Jan 6, 2009, at 12:55 AM, marianne dillow wrote: >> >> >> I am the one who posted about Barack Obama and myself being 9th >> cousins through Conway, Eltonhead, Thacker grandparents in Virginia. >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP- >> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Marge; DNA is just another genealogy tool - a very powerful one, but still just a tool. Just as wills, deeds, census, marriages, etc. don't solve all of your genealogy questions, neither can DNA. However, in your case of an orphan given a new surname in the 1760s, I'd say DNA is one of the best tools to use - all the number of participants grow, and the Y-DNA databases grow, you may yet find a match. Jim Bartlett On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Marge wrote: > DNA is wonderful. But in some cases it doesn't help. Our family's > earliest ancestor was first recorded in 1763 when he married. He was an orphan and was given his surname. All efforts to find ANY name of that ilk have been fruitless. Even trips to England etc. Now we took a DNA test of our oldest available descendant. That was almost seven months ago. We have yet to come across a surname that matches even to 2 markers off. So..DNA is fine when you have some type of match in your surname line, but boy it sure doesn't help if you can't find a match in ANY surname.   ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP-request@rootsweb.com <mailto:VACULPEP-request@rootsweb.com>   <mailto:VACULPEP-request@rootsweb.com>  with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Maybe we can take some of this bickering off list. E On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Craig Kilby <persisto@earthlink.net> wrote: > Marianne: > > Because something is in your Family Tree Maker program and database > doesn't prove anything. > > You have plastered this list with all sorts of fantastic claims. I > have no doubt that you believe it all to be true. > > Show me why we should believe any of it. > > Just the facts Ma'am, just the facts > > > CMK > > On Jan 6, 2009, at 2:15 AM, marianne dillow wrote: > > > > > Hi Craig, > > > > Well the wills proves it all. They are on my Family Tree Maker. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > VACULPEP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Peace, Elizabeth and David "Peace is the skillful management of conflict." Kenneth Boulding "Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict -- alternatives to passive or aggressive responses, alternatives to violence." Dorothy Thompson

On the last cold day of December in the dying year we count as 406, the river Rhine froze solid, providing the natural bridge that hundreds of thousands of hungry men, women and children had been waiting for. They were the barbarians and they were illiterate and left no records and certainly had no need for the records and literature of the Roman Empire which they were destroying. The beginning of the dark ages. It would be a very long time before names were again recorded and then only if you were someone. A commoner? Probably no record that you ever existed. Now how someone claims to research through this time I cannot begin to guess. I can accept a connection to Charlemange or William the Conquerer or to one of the Magna Charta Sureties but probably not much more. Of course you can always be like my grandmother who said our ancestors were English Royalty when in fact they were coal miners from Cornwall. So the 'get back to genealogy' comment I assume refers to the subject of this board and that's Culpeper. There is much to be explored here. www.johnhogg.us John -----Original Message----- From: vaculpep-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:vaculpep-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Craig Kilby Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 8:39 AM To: vaculpep@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [VACULPEP] It's all relative I always enjoy the people who say "Let's get back to geneaolgy" Yes, that is where we started. To the best of my knowledge, neither Jesus the Christ (surname unknown) nor William the Conqueror (surname unknown) left a will. I would like to see the evidence for descent from either one of these two men. That is genealogy, and a perfectly good topic for discussion on this list.. We never got off of genealogy. To say "Let's get back to geneaolgy" is a sophomoric non starter. On Jan 6, 2009, at 9:24 AM, Sunshine49 wrote: > oh please, can we take this private, this is a place for genealogy, > not venting one's Ego [did so! did not! did so!]. > > Nancy > > ------- > I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days. > > --Daniel Boone > > > > On Jan 6, 2009, at 1:38 AM, Craig Kilby wrote: > >> I'm from Missouri, so you will have to show me your documentation and >> how you have proved all of this. Your move. >> >> On Jan 6, 2009, at 1:15 AM, marianne dillow wrote: >> >>> Hi Craig, >>> >>> It is proven all the way from me through my Mother's lines by >>> wills and other records. That is all that is required... records,.. >>> wills, etc. I have a will on each generation etc. That is called >>> genealogy and research. Have a good day :) >>> >>> Marianne Dillow >>> >>> >>> --- On Tue, 1/6/09, Craig Kilby <persisto@earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>> From: Craig Kilby <persisto@earthlink.net> >>> Subject: It's all relative >>> To: mdillow31@verizon.net, vaculpep@rootsweb.com >>> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 12:11 AM >>> >>> >>> I think this was the whole point. I could go to Walmart and run >>> into a ninth cousin without either of us even knowing it. All this >>> talk about being descendants of King so-and-so or Adam and Eve is >>> just so much talk. As my favorite researcher likes to say: >>> >>> >>> PROVE IT >>> >>> >>> Craig Kilby >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 6, 2009, at 12:55 AM, marianne dillow wrote: >>> >>> >>> I am the one who posted about Barack Obama and myself being 9th >>> cousins through Conway, Eltonhead, Thacker grandparents in Virginia. >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP- >>> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>> in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP- >> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VACULPEP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Marianne: Because something is in your Family Tree Maker program and database doesn't prove anything. You have plastered this list with all sorts of fantastic claims. I have no doubt that you believe it all to be true. Show me why we should believe any of it. Just the facts Ma'am, just the facts CMK On Jan 6, 2009, at 2:15 AM, marianne dillow wrote: > > Hi Craig, > > Well the wills proves it all. They are on my Family Tree Maker.

Well, DNA may be an ultimate proof over any paper trail, at least in general regarding a distant ancestor....human nature and all that....'biology' could reveal that the paper trails are not always correct (legal and official perhaps...and passing muster as far as generally accepted genealogy research and records principles). Except for cases that actually made it to court...a lot can be hidden in paper that could be exposed by science. Just my humble thoughts. I will say that I wish I had been more thorough and had adhered to a higher standard (unknown to me but ignorance is not really an excuse) in my early 'research' and had taken a LOT less at face value. So far, as I have obtained vital records, tax records, etc. (and to some extent census records), nothing has been shown to be glaringly wrong. I do have some of the early Germanna kin mis-aligned because I took them directly from the Records or from others. Once entered into FTM, it's not so easy to extricate and realign. Sigh. On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Marge <msealock@mchsi.com> wrote: > That's correct Mr. Kilby. I say...give me a paper trail. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > VACULPEP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Kathleen Bowen Simons Falls Church, Virginia IMAGE - a No. VA Christian church whose mission is simple: Worship. Community. Service. www.thisisimage.com (click on the Audio icon to hear Pastor Chris' messages!) Listen to a beautiful song, "Feel the Ocean Calling," by Roderick C. Simons: http://www.myspace.com/roderickcsimons

DNA is wonderful. But in some cases it doesn't help. Our family's earliest ancestor was first recorded in 1763 when he married. He was an orphan and was given his surname. All efforts to find ANY name of that ilk have been fruitless. Even trips to England etc. Now we took a DNA test of our oldest available descendant. That was almost seven months ago. We have yet to come across a surname that matches even to 2 markers off. So..DNA is fine when you have some type of match in your surname line, but boy it sure doesn't help if you can't find a match in ANY surname.