Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Hey Nancy! Oh, that damnable "Thomas Pincerna"! I swear, I still can't for the life of me figure out who he was or wht anyone thinks he even existed, much less connects to anyone in our line! The oldest record I've ever found is Hasted's reference to him being an "ancestor" of the elder Robert Pincerna. That's it! No original documentation that I've ever found. Then there are the two Roberts, who seem to have no historical counterparts either, beyond the Visitations, which are 16th century; hardly contemporary evidence. Moreover, we know that the Visitations are notorious about fictitious progenitors to begin with.
Some researchers place Robert the Elder in the de Clare family, as there was a roughly concurrent man by the same name in that family, but we he was a magnate, so history records perfectly well who his descendents are, and our bunch are NOT among them! *sigh*.
I count Sir Jean le Botiller of Yatton as our earliest known ancestor by and large, because even the elder Roberts only appear in a Visitation, and have seemingly no contemporary evidence to support their existance. As I stated in my book, I think the whole batch descend from nothing more lofty than an obscure cadet branch of the Warrington bunch.
That said, evidence could come to light tomorrow which throws all my theories in the toilet. Such is the nature of genealogical research! Until then, I need more proof to elevate anybody before Sir Jean to "official" status! LOL!
Anyway, I don't have a Joseph W. in my direct branch. I don''t think I've entered anybody in Ancestry beyond William of Deep Run, so you can use his line on down to find me, I would suppose; William, Spencer, William, James Thomas, Henry Lee, George Dewey, Betty Frances, and me!
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/butler/messages/12144.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|