GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-09 > 1127183881


From: "Greg W. Moore" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] William Wallace
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <002301c5bd88$d7bff290$0c139a8e@PeterAKincaid>


No - one would not - and the reason is that we, as I think, have no idea about which part of Wales he might have come from - if (!!) from Wales at all ... That is why people say the "key word" Wales to mean the whole area which is now called Wales ... Greg




"Peter A. Kincaid" <> wrote:
In that case one would talk in terms of Gwynedd, Powys, etc. and
not Wales. It was not until the time of Edward I that Wales was
under the complete control of the English (as they came to be known).
On the other hand the Wallace name is found in the Strathclyde area
long before then.

Peter

P.S. For the record my question about Texas had nothing to do with
George Bush.




----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg W. Moore"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] William Wallace


> Exactly!! I am not talking about the original or the current status of
> Britain (one could call it a "macro" definition for a large scale, low
> resolution, thin geographical "mesh") but about the time when we do know,
> roughly, about the Wallace's origin - one of such stories says his
> ancetors came from Wales. So - I encourage you to switch from this highly
> inaccurate and funny "scale" - Britain and start talking about the finer
> geographical "mesh" plus switch from jumping in an unccordinated manner on
> the time scale to the time which we know, as we think/suspect, as the
> beginning of the Wallace's family.
>
> Greg
> P.S. I am from Washington DC. I am a former scientist and university
> professor as well as managing editor of an international scientific
> journal. And - we, in our community here, use an appropriate language in
> our discussions ...
>
>
>
>
> "Peter A. Kincaid" <> wrote:
> The land was originally called Britain. They were British. Then the Belgae
> came; the Romans came; the Scots came; the Angles, the Saxons, the Jutes,
> the Frisians, the Franks, then the Norse and Danish Viking, the Normans,
> etc. (some of the latter being descendants of the former). Those British
> in the south who were driven west
> became the Welsh and the Cornish but they are still British. You and Cliff
> did not know this. You thought I was using a modern term. We are talking
> the past and ethnic roots here so I am using the ethnic root term here. We
> do not call the American natives/Indians/etc. Chinese or Russians do we.
> Until one can prove where exactly the native British came from they should
> be called British to distinguish them from the Saxons, Frisians, etc.
>
> Peter
>
> P.S. I am just curious but are you from Texas?



This thread: