Re: Genealogy For The Beginner

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:19:39 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Eagle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:

>>That is his line of descent or pedigree and is construed by most
authorities (at least
>>in the US) to be his genealogy.
>
>What kind of authorities?  

Those who make the rules for genealogy.

>To the legal authorities, my adopted kids
>are mine.  They even have a birth certificate issue by our government,
>and another one issued by the Soviet government saying they were born
>to my wife in Russia, even though they were born before our marriage,
>and my wife has never been in Russia.  The fiction is legal reality,
>and 300 years from now, no one will know it is baloney unless they
>find my genealogical noted.

And that is the crux of the matter. No one will know it is baloney (to
use a kind word).

Also, it destroys diagnosis of medical problems that show evidence of
being transmitted down family bloodlines.

As Romulus said to Remus, our momma was a wolf. How does that fit your
Bob's Fables?

I was a math major - I'm not used to sloppy work where mommy and daddy
are not really momma and daddy except by an act of Congress. 




>
>Augustus Caesar was adopted by his great uncle Julius in to the gens
>(note the term) Julia.  His dynasty was called the Julian dynasty.
>Though adopted, he was legally a member of that gens.  A genealogy
>that doesn't recognize that, in favor of "bloodlines" runs counter to
>the etymology of the word "genealogy".
>
>>Should that person change families by
>>any means, legal or illegal, it becomes "family history" if the
>>apparent pedigree is changed. To distinguish between the two, what do
>>you call the original status if not genealogy?
>
>You presume that there is a reason to distinguish between the two that
>is im****tant enough to have distinct terminology.
>
>Just like there is no unique term to distinguish each of your 32
>great-great grandparents, why does there need to be one for this
>peculiar distinction?

Because they are NOT my great grandparents unless I accept the lie.
>
>It is a specialty field within "family history" aka "genealogy" to
>research provable bloodlines.  That specialty field is called
>"genealogy" by a minority of "genealogists" who want to look down
>their noses at everyone else who misusing a word that they
>appropriated from those who originally used it for the broader sense
>(any 14th century use of the word genealogy, would almost certainly
>have been referencing the legal ancestry of inheritance rather than
>solely the bloodlines).
>
>>Calling both Family History without distingui****ng nomenclature. is
>>totally unacceptable.
>
>That is an assumption, not a conclusion.

And your's is an opinion worth exactly what I paid for it.

Hugh