GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-01 > 1010870551
From: Renia <>
Subject: Re: Overall Reliability Of Medieval Lineages
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:22:31 +0000 (UTC)
References: <r6X%7.1566$H_3.firstname.lastname@example.org>, <3C4088AF.A075AA01@DUMPbtinternet.com>, <71008.1612$H_3.email@example.com>
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
> 1. Yes, I much prefer the expression "dumb as dishwater" ---- it's my
> coinage ---- and it better fits the facts and testimonies from Brits
> that I have in hand about Princess Anne.
> 2. I have received no email response from you. Perhaps you dropped it
> or forgot to send it.
No, I sent it. Must have disappeared into cyberspace, or else your reply
thing doesn't work. Never mind.
> 3. It's VERY foolish of you to only concentrate on a one-name study and
> then WHINE about not being able to link up to Royal Ancestors.
> TERMINALLY foolish. You have been WHINING about this for several years.
I wasn't whining. I was commenting. I keep saying, it doesn't bother me.
> 4. I don't care how long you have been doing Mediaeval Genealogy.
I've been doing genealogy (not specifically medieval genealogy) for almost
25 years. I can't remember when I got my lot further back than Burke's
(which was in error) by a couple of hundred years.
> you have a pedigree wherein "my own family, who were armigerous
> landowners, whose descendants and relatives are splattered all over the
> peerage" ---- as you YOURSELF say ---- then you are either GROSSLY
> incompetent or INCREDIBLY lazy, or both, if you cannot find a linkage to
I'm not particularly looking for linkage to royalty, so it's not laziness. I
have genealogical specialities other than looking for royal blood. And I'm
certainly not incompetent, or I wouldn't have found half of what I have
found, for myself, and clients.
> 5. Read, Mark, Learn And Inwardly Digest.
> 6. How Sweet It Is!
> 7. Deus Vult.