Genealogy and family history

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:09:56 GMT, Eagle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (J. Hugh Sullivan)
wrote:

>The term Family History is an abused term - many people use it as an
>excuse to depart from bloodlines and that is not acceptable in
>genealogy. We need to keep the distinction in my opinion.

I'm not sure what you are getting at there -- it seems contradictory. 

You seem to imply that family history should NOT depart from bloodlines --
but
wouldn't that be blurring the distinction rather than keeping it. 

If two unrelated families from the same village in one country emigrate to
another, settle in the same town and go into a business partner****p that
lasts
for several generations, that is surely part of the family history, even
if it
departs from bloodlines and has nothing to do with genealogy.

The business partner****p is part of the family history even though it is
not
part of the genealogy, because genealogy is converned exclusively with
bloodlines (or, more accurately, DNA lines), whereas family history is
not. 

 


>
>Genealogy is also full of DNA surprises. I find that my closest MRCAs
>are three different surnames, none Sullivan so far.
>
>Hugh

-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop
uk