************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
I have to say however, that using an argument based on when her first child was born is not a very convincing one. We have many cases where a woman was married first with no offspring, even though she was fertile, and secondly suddenly starting having offspring.
It would be far more convincing if they had followed the property.
Will
--------------------
Stirnet's underlying and SOLE source for the entire multi-generational
Swinburne pedigree is
www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/8805/
that's it. That's their source.
Will
------------------
P.S. Barbara Swinburne was not dead in 1363, she was *living* in 1363.
We don't know when she died.
Will
-----------------
Thank you Will for your excellent post pointing out that even Stirnet
can make the colossal mistake of sourcing a multi-generational family
descent to a single website.
If you go *to* that website, they in a quite silly fashion, name one
of *their* sources as "The IGI". Is it even possible to name a source
in a more useless fashion? "The IGI" as if that, in any way, allows a
person to verify the details.
On the other hand, they do mention an actual *useful* source citation
of "The History of Northumberland" by Hodgson. Which happens to be
online here
So anyone interested in this line, should skip all the intervening
interpretations, glosses, and misplaced members, and go straight to
the fundamental source. Where we will likely see, that many
assumptions have been made anyway.
Will
The problem James isn't that individual facts may be correct. Sure
some Swinburne and some Graham may have married. That doesn't prove
that Barbara or anybody else was their offspring. The problem is that
the connection of all those facts to each other to make a family
descent may be incorrect.
Will
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com