SOG-UK-L Archives

Archiver > SOG-UK > 1999-10 > 0938945053


From: Barney Tyrwhitt-Drake <>
Subject: Re: [SOG] September 1999 Genealogists Magazine
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 11:04:13 +0100


In message <>, John Bending
<> writes

>I would think that Barney is mistaken in the 99% not related. Other was
>the ancestor of several 'noble' families besides the Carews, the
>Fitzgeralds, the Windsors, and de Bendings, amongst 'Others', and after
>30 generations their descendants must be legion
>
Possibly because my colloquial use of the term 'related' differs from
yours? As it happens I have FITZGERALD ancestry, but that doesn't mean
that I'm either interested in or actively researching all descendants of
a common ancestor from the 10th century!

Just as the very small number of people who have CAREW ancestry have
celebrated this article, so was I interested when a previous article was
published on the TROLLOPE family and mentioned the author's MEETKIRKE
ancestry, which I share. However I recognised that I was in a minority
of one in that case, and did not feel that GM was the right place to
publish that.

>And if the GM is ever turned into a Roy tabloid, I would suggest Nest
>(the 'Helen of Wales', mistress of Henry I, and grandmother of Gerald of
>Wales), the wife of Gerald the son of Other, for page three.

I think GM could do with taking a long hard look at what Roy Stockdill
edits now out of interest, rather than what he wrote for in the past out
of pecuniary necessity. The Journal of the Guild of One Name Studies has
a great deal more of interest to serious family historians and
genealogists in it than GM does. I am neither criticising the erudition
of the articles in GM, nor proposing that they should be 'dumbed down'.
I do question their relevance to the interests of the Society's
membership.
--
Barney Tyrwhitt-Drake

Drake Software web site: http://www.tdrake.demon.co.u

This thread: