Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2010-01 > 1264295436

From: Nathaniel Taylor <>
Subject: Re: Hotman - Menteith - d'Aillebout (was: Will's descent from Thomasde Marle)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:10:36 -0500
References: <><><><><><><><>

In article

> I am very surprised that other people are answering for me without
> asking for my own comment.
> My article on Jean de Monteth was the result of 25 years of work. On
> my own, and not because I had access to a research done by a
> professional genealogist in 1960 (I do not understand the basis of
> what I just read in this exchange of posts the only results of the
> research were extracts that can be found, for example, at McGill
> University in Montreal, Canada), I exchanged a lot of letters with
> correspondents in Scotland, did a lot of research on my own, ordered
> deeds from Scotland, and it is people in Scotland who told me that
> they considered that I had looked at all possible sources in Scotland.
> And Denis (I wish to make this precision to the internet world Denis
> is a friend while I do not see him quite often and this post is
> respectfully submitted), you know I do not agree with your approach
> that only a continuous line is valid (you just wrote - there is no
> need to rely on a partial line) there are many court decisions in
> France for example where the judges recognize that one noble man is
> the descendant of a remote noble ancestor, without being able to
> establish a direct and continuous lineage. Our ancestor Jean de
> Monteth made a statement he is the descendant of the earl of
> Montrose my article tried to explain this, and as I said quite
> often, the original draft of my article had 15 pages more, and the
> learned genealogist (and late) Ren Jett recommended that I cut these
> 15 pages, as they were mere explanations on why the other theories
> were discarded, to keep only the real explanation in the article. I
> do not agree with the statement on your webpage that the is a
> controversy on the lineage found in the article the controversy is
> created by you only, nobody else, and I do not agree with your
> decision to discard a statement in an authentic deed. Ren Jetts on
> your approach was - if we discard authentic deeds just because we do
> not agree with the content 500 years after only because this is our
> opinion and we have no other solution to offer, there is no need to
> continue to do genealogy.
> The whole respectfully submitted.
> R.-Yves Gagn

Salut Roland-Yves, and thank you for your note to the group! I am new
to the problem of this French Menteith, but I think we may all be in
agreement. Denis may have classed this as a 'controversy' on his gateway
index website, but I'm sure he would also agree that the indications in
the marriage contract are themselves very valuable, and that for him to
have left aside the Menteith question while pursuing the Hotman -
Picquigny ancestry does not mean that the declaration of Menteith's
ancestry is either false, or can never be solved. I find it very
interesting because it appears to be the only known 'Auld-Alliance'
gateway providing connecting medieval noble Scottish ancestors, via a
French marriage, to Quebec settlers, unless there are others lurking
among other ancestral paths of the known gateways listed by Denis on his
website. I look forward to reading your article when I have the

I understand from your remarks that there may yet be (as Will suggested)
further opportunities to research and identify this Menteith among
archival sources in Paris.

Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:

This thread: