Re: Another C.P. Addition: Margaret Neville, wife of Sir William

On May 16, 9:10 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> If Ermentrude says she saw confirmatory evidence in the pedigrees of
> Robert Glover regarding the parentage of Margaret Neville, I trust her
> word on it.

That is your prerogative.  It is also misplaced trust, given that
every time you refer to her abilities, you can't stop yourself from
qualifying it with the words "for her time". Doesn't that concern
you?  I guess not. What is im****tant is that she agrees with your
guess, so she must be trustworthy.

I have to say, this is an odd form of the appeal to authority (where
again is our expert on logical fallacies, who never seems to detect
them when coming from this source), appealing to the authority of a
pseudonym for an unknown person.  I guess, though it is fitting that
you should accept that if Ermengarde said it it must be true: after
all, you seem to expect the same level of trust in your own
pronouncements.

What would a 19th century genealogist consider to be confirmatory?

taf