Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1028006604

From: "Sutliff" <>
Subject: RE: The Henry Project - one year later
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:29:12 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>

Another important consideration pertains to those whose submissions
would help supplement Stewart's pages. The probable lack of
participation at this point is not due to unwillingness, but rather the
limited access to sources necessarily acceptable to document these

The direction in which the project is expanded ought to take into
account those areas where greater participation would be most helpful
while still maintaining reliability. Many contributors have access to
CP, AR7, MCS5, DD, Visitations, Sanders, etc. Far fewer of us have
access to IPM's, fines and other more specialized (and necessary)
sources. I would guess that very few have access to "eastern" material.
The more obscure the document or person to be cited, the more likely the
participation will be diminished in direct proportion. It would seem
that much of this depends on accessibility to source materials and the
technical scope of the potential participants.

Hope this makes sense.

Henry Sutliff

-----Original Message-----
From: The Williams Family [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: The Henry Project - one year later


That's a good point. I agree that many of the allegedly "well
documented" ancestries have been proven to be not so well documented as
all that. However, after a certain point eastern lines such as the
Armenian dynasties and the Byzantine emperors will actually be better
documented than their barbaric cousins in the west. Either way you are
probably right and it probably would be better to stick with westerners.
Certainly more people are familiar with them.

Kelsey J. Williams

Kay Allen AG wrote:

> Not really. I believe that Stewart has found that not all the
ancestry was as well
> documented as had been thought.
> The object of the exercise was to develop techniques witha fairly well
documented focus.
> If you start with controversial ancestry then, by definition, it is
not well-documented. And
> as we have seen so many times, things are sometimes not as
well-documented as they had
> seemed. They were just conventional wisdom.
> K
> The Williams Family wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > But is it not redundant to go over a well established ancestry?
I think something
> > like the Henry Project would be at its best dealing with
controversial lines. The
> > flexibility of the internet allows for a much better treatment of
that sort of thing than
> > a book would. Besides, there remains a core of proven Eastern
ancestry which can be used
> > as a basis for speculation.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Kelsey J. Williams
> >

This thread: