I think it's quality far more than quantity which matters. Being in
several different published genealogies counts for little - they copy
from each other. Being in one will or IPM can be far more useful than
half a dozen of the former (although of course terms like cousin or
nephew etc can be vague, and 'in-law' if often omitted).
On 22/05/2016 08:00, devon-request(a)rootsweb.com wrote:
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 08:21:22 +0100
Subject: Re: [DEV] Charlemagne 742
To: Len Heyward<firstname.lastname@example.org>,devon(a)rootsweb.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Perhaps I should clarify - by "county histories" I am not referring to
those written by antiquarians, who often had their own agenda and were
writing for a specific audience. I normally look to British History
) as they tend to quote the Victoria
County History which in turn cites reliable sources. It is well known
that the Heralds' Visitations are riddled with inaccuracies, as the
later descents may include certain embellishments to enhance a "nouveau
riche" family's past.
For that reason, it is desirable wherever possible to find more than one
source for a "fact" before accepting it as such.