Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
It was what I was asking and thank you.
I'm a direct descendant of William and Cecily, in fact I have, it seems, the exact same Y DNA as William, in as much as I share the same YDNA with another descendant, apparently in our two lines, that diverged 350 years ago, there has been no mutation of DYS Markers, although other lineages have experienced mutations. (I'm the Projact Administrator for the Farrar DNA project at http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/farrar/results
For 70 years I doubted that I was a descendant until the DNA evidence came in. But as regards the real name of Cecily whether it was Fludd or Reynolds. I have no chaunvistic interest. In fact my interest in genealogy is not chauvinistic at all, as I've already dsputed some claima about the "auspicious" origins of the English (Yorkshire) Farrar's (I need DNA proof before I jump on bandwagons).
What I would like to see is a side by side comparison of the Fludd v Reynolds advocates. I've seen avery complex, albeit hypothetical, genealogy of Cecily Reynolds, but absolutely no proof at all that Cecily was a Reynolds.
The best argument I've seen so far is for Fludd, but again it lacks that definitive piece of evidence and thus at this juncture both appear to be viable options (although I've inserted Fludd, tentatively, into my gedcom.)
Any ideas on how to elicit a dialogue with a strong, and I mean rational and ready to produce some documentation, advocate of the Reynolds hypothesis?
There are tons of strong advocates for almost any hypothesis in genealogy, but the vast majority of them are irrational, grab at straws, and squeeze square pegs into round holes, just to complete their fantasy, err puzzle.
I'm particularly vexed by those persons, who suffer from weak egos and self image, who in an attempt to bolster themselves socially/financially/mentally insist that they are descended from "noble and auspicious" lines, when truth is that there is no such thing as noble, people are human, and are ancestors were as guilty of crimes large and small as we are today. In fact the Norman invaders of England were thugs, murderers, killing women and children, destroying homes, and virtually enslaving the people whose home (England) they occupied.. and my family was, supposedly, amongst them in fact supposedly a lieutenant of Guillaume le Batard Conquerant, who was given 210 fiefdoms in the midlands in 1070, property taken from Edwin son of Algar kind of Mercia, who himself was a ruthless, brutal enslaving
son of an invader.
That's what nobility is, hardly noble at all.
Boots
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:No followups yet |
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/flood/messages/1324.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|