Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Hi JD,
When you start talking about "traditions" what you are really talking about is the old debate, "which came first, the chicken or the egg."
Here's some food for throught. You mentioned a "tradition" that Sarah was a BEALL. Regarding this, there are two possible scenarios and sequence of events:
Scenario 1
1. Tradition that Sarah was a BEALL.
2. Conclusion that she was the daughter of Ninian.
3. Discrediting of the idea that she was Ninian's daughter. (Which happened at least 75 years ago).
This equals the tradition that she was still a BEALL remaining.
Scenario 2
1. Assumption that Sarah was a daughter of Ninian because she had a son of that name.
2. Discrediting of the idea that she was Ninian's daughter. (Which as mentioned above, happened at least 75 years ago.)
3. Descendants cling to the idea she was BEALL, but just not a daughter of Ninian.
4. The only "tradition" that Sarah was a BEALL then all come from holdover of what was in print in number 1 of this scenario regarding her being a daughter of Ninian.
This equals there is no "tradition" of her being a BEALL, only a holdover from point 1.
From what I have found Scenario 2 appears to be what happened. If anyone can supply references to her being an "unidentified" BEALL (not Ninian's daughter) or a "tradition" to her being an BEALL in print before being a daughter of Ninian was discredited (in other words, early 1900s), please supply the reference.
Notify Administrator about this message?
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/magruder/messages/1174.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|