Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Beccles
- From: WJhonson <wjhonson@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:51:38 -0700
<<In a message dated 10/25/07 17:23:30 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@xxxxxxxxx writes:
The authors draw conclusions on age of participants, places of residence,
interpretation of the word "neve" in texts which often are interpreted either as "nephew"
or "grandson," by them and others, without redressing the entire text with this questionable
translation, and dismiss a pedigree in the British Museum in its totality as "fraudulent"
when it fact it is based on two previous and accepted *Visitations.* >>
Bill you still have it in your head that Visitations are "factual". They are not. They are evidence just like anything else. They have no higher value, than any other evidence. In fact, on generations several times removed *from the contributor* they have much *less* value than other evidence. How many people can accurately remember the names of all their great-grand-aunts ? Not many.
You need to understand that many times, visitations are merely writen down from what one person tells another, *not* from searches in documents, or verification of the points.
Sometimes other evidence, upholds the visitation pedigree, sometimes it does not.
- Prev by Date: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Beccles
- Next by Date: Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Beccles
- Previous by thread: Re: Somerby's forged Peck pedigree...
- Next by thread: Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Beccles