On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > This was the point I was making.
> > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > None. Not one.
> > >
> > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
>
> When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
>
> That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.

I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.

~Cindy

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source..
> > > > None. Not one.
> > > >
> > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> >
> > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> >
> > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
>
> ~Cindy

Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.

I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.

I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!

~Cindy

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > >
> > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > >
> > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> >
> > ~Cindy
> Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
>
> I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
>
> I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
>
> ~Cindy

One DNA test?
One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > >
> > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > >
> > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > >
> > > ~Cindy
> > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> >
> > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> >
> > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> >
> > ~Cindy
> One DNA test?
> One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.

Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf

A quinta-feira, 14 de julho de 2022 à(s) 19:28:03 UTC+1, Cindy H. escreveu:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source..
> > > > None. Not one.
> > > >
> > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> >
> > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> >
> > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
>
> ~Cindy
Note, however, that neither Mary Dale Harrison Jones or Elizabeth Dale Rogers, the other two of Diana Skipwith Dale's daughters named any daughter Diana let alone any son Henry Skipwith.

On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 8:17:05 AM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> A quinta-feira, 14 de julho de 2022 à(s) 19:28:03 UTC+1, Cindy H. escreveu:
> > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > >
> > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > >
> > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> >
> > ~Cindy
> Note, however, that neither Mary Dale Harrison Jones or Elizabeth Dale Rogers, the other two of Diana Skipwith Dale's daughters named any daughter Diana let alone any son Henry Skipwith.

Paulo, you make a good point! Maybe someday there will be a DNA study which will clear up Katherine Dale's maternity for good. I'm surprised there haven't already been some studies using DNA from Katherine's descendants and Skipwith descendants in order to see if they are related.

~Cindy

A sábado, 23 de julho de 2022 à(s) 16:42:27 UTC+1, Cindy H. escreveu:
> On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 8:17:05 AM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > A quinta-feira, 14 de julho de 2022 à(s) 19:28:03 UTC+1, Cindy H. escreveu:
> > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > >
> > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > >
> > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > >
> > > ~Cindy
> > Note, however, that neither Mary Dale Harrison Jones or Elizabeth Dale Rogers, the other two of Diana Skipwith Dale's daughters named any daughter Diana let alone any son Henry Skipwith.
> Paulo, you make a good point! Maybe someday there will be a DNA study which will clear up Katherine Dale's maternity for good. I'm surprised there haven't already been some studies using DNA from Katherine's descendants and Skipwith descendants in order to see if they are related.
>
> ~Cindy
AFAIK, this is too far removed in time for DNA to be helpful. For now, I assume Katherine Dale Carter is Diana Skipwith Dale's daughter. The only evidence against it is that Diana used her maiden name in two documents after Katherine Dale was born. Note one of those documents was not actually signed by Diana, it was just a court record mentioning her. The writer may simply have used her maiden name because he knew she ws the sister of Grey Skipwith. What was the other document? Anyways, note both documents were before the death of her father Baronet Henry Skipwith.

On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 12:47:51 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> A sábado, 23 de julho de 2022 à(s) 16:42:27 UTC+1, Cindy H. escreveu:
> > On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 8:17:05 AM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > > A quinta-feira, 14 de julho de 2022 à(s) 19:28:03 UTC+1, Cindy H.. escreveu:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > >
> > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > >
> > > > ~Cindy
> > > Note, however, that neither Mary Dale Harrison Jones or Elizabeth Dale Rogers, the other two of Diana Skipwith Dale's daughters named any daughter Diana let alone any son Henry Skipwith.
> > Paulo, you make a good point! Maybe someday there will be a DNA study which will clear up Katherine Dale's maternity for good. I'm surprised there haven't already been some studies using DNA from Katherine's descendants and Skipwith descendants in order to see if they are related.
> >
> > ~Cindy
> AFAIK, this is too far removed in time for DNA to be helpful. For now, I assume Katherine Dale Carter is Diana Skipwith Dale's daughter. The only evidence against it is that Diana used her maiden name in two documents after Katherine Dale was born. Note one of those documents was not actually signed by Diana, it was just a court record mentioning her. The writer may simply have used her maiden name because he knew she ws the sister of Grey Skipwith. What was the other document? Anyways, note both documents were before the death of her father Baronet Henry Skipwith.

Paulo, I don't know how accurate this site is, but here is what it says about how far back in time DNA can be helpful: https://whoareyoumadeof.com/blog/how-far-back-can-you-go-with-dna/

What is the significance of both documents being signed before the death of her father Baronet Henry Skipwith? Does that make it more likely that she would have used her maiden name even after she was married?

~Cindy

A sábado, 23 de julho de 2022 à(s) 18:34:35 UTC+1, Cindy H. escreveu:
> On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 12:47:51 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > A sábado, 23 de julho de 2022 à(s) 16:42:27 UTC+1, Cindy H. escreveu:
> > > On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 8:17:05 AM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > > > A quinta-feira, 14 de julho de 2022 à(s) 19:28:03 UTC+1, Cindy H. escreveu:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > Note, however, that neither Mary Dale Harrison Jones or Elizabeth Dale Rogers, the other two of Diana Skipwith Dale's daughters named any daughter Diana let alone any son Henry Skipwith.
> > > Paulo, you make a good point! Maybe someday there will be a DNA study which will clear up Katherine Dale's maternity for good. I'm surprised there haven't already been some studies using DNA from Katherine's descendants and Skipwith descendants in order to see if they are related.
> > >
> > > ~Cindy
> > AFAIK, this is too far removed in time for DNA to be helpful. For now, I assume Katherine Dale Carter is Diana Skipwith Dale's daughter. The only evidence against it is that Diana used her maiden name in two documents after Katherine Dale was born. Note one of those documents was not actually signed by Diana, it was just a court record mentioning her. The writer may simply have used her maiden name because he knew she ws the sister of Grey Skipwith. What was the other document? Anyways, note both documents were before the death of her father Baronet Henry Skipwith.
> Paulo, I don't know how accurate this site is, but here is what it says about how far back in time DNA can be helpful: https://whoareyoumadeof.com/blog/how-far-back-can-you-go-with-dna/
>
> What is the significance of both documents being signed before the death of her father Baronet Henry Skipwith? Does that make it more likely that she would have used her maiden name even after she was married?
>
> ~Cindy
Yes, I think it does.

On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 7:21:29 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> A sábado, 23 de julho de 2022 à(s) 18:34:35 UTC+1, Cindy H. escreveu:
> > On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 12:47:51 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > > A sábado, 23 de julho de 2022 à(s) 16:42:27 UTC+1, Cindy H. escreveu:
> > > > On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 8:17:05 AM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > > > > A quinta-feira, 14 de julho de 2022 à(s) 19:28:03 UTC+1, Cindy H. escreveu:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > Note, however, that neither Mary Dale Harrison Jones or Elizabeth Dale Rogers, the other two of Diana Skipwith Dale's daughters named any daughter Diana let alone any son Henry Skipwith.
> > > > Paulo, you make a good point! Maybe someday there will be a DNA study which will clear up Katherine Dale's maternity for good. I'm surprised there haven't already been some studies using DNA from Katherine's descendants and Skipwith descendants in order to see if they are related.
> > > >
> > > > ~Cindy
> > > AFAIK, this is too far removed in time for DNA to be helpful. For now, I assume Katherine Dale Carter is Diana Skipwith Dale's daughter. The only evidence against it is that Diana used her maiden name in two documents after Katherine Dale was born. Note one of those documents was not actually signed by Diana, it was just a court record mentioning her. The writer may simply have used her maiden name because he knew she ws the sister of Grey Skipwith. What was the other document? Anyways, note both documents were before the death of her father Baronet Henry Skipwith.
> > Paulo, I don't know how accurate this site is, but here is what it says about how far back in time DNA can be helpful: https://whoareyoumadeof.com/blog/how-far-back-can-you-go-with-dna/
> >
> > What is the significance of both documents being signed before the death of her father Baronet Henry Skipwith? Does that make it more likely that she would have used her maiden name even after she was married?
> >
> > ~Cindy
> Yes, I think it does.

Here is a very interesting article about Edward Dale, husband of Diana Skipwith: https://collation.folger.edu/2016/07/earliest-recorded-shakespeare-america/

On Monday, July 25, 2022 at 10:32:54 AM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 7:21:29 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > A sábado, 23 de julho de 2022 à(s) 18:34:35 UTC+1, Cindy H. escreveu:
> > > On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 12:47:51 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > > > A sábado, 23 de julho de 2022 à(s) 16:42:27 UTC+1, Cindy H. escreveu:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 8:17:05 AM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > > > > > A quinta-feira, 14 de julho de 2022 à(s) 19:28:03 UTC+1, Cindy H. escreveu:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other..
> > > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > Note, however, that neither Mary Dale Harrison Jones or Elizabeth Dale Rogers, the other two of Diana Skipwith Dale's daughters named any daughter Diana let alone any son Henry Skipwith.
> > > > > Paulo, you make a good point! Maybe someday there will be a DNA study which will clear up Katherine Dale's maternity for good. I'm surprised there haven't already been some studies using DNA from Katherine's descendants and Skipwith descendants in order to see if they are related.
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > AFAIK, this is too far removed in time for DNA to be helpful. For now, I assume Katherine Dale Carter is Diana Skipwith Dale's daughter. The only evidence against it is that Diana used her maiden name in two documents after Katherine Dale was born. Note one of those documents was not actually signed by Diana, it was just a court record mentioning her. The writer may simply have used her maiden name because he knew she ws the sister of Grey Skipwith. What was the other document? Anyways, note both documents were before the death of her father Baronet Henry Skipwith.
> > > Paulo, I don't know how accurate this site is, but here is what it says about how far back in time DNA can be helpful: https://whoareyoumadeof.com/blog/how-far-back-can-you-go-with-dna/
> > >
> > > What is the significance of both documents being signed before the death of her father Baronet Henry Skipwith? Does that make it more likely that she would have used her maiden name even after she was married?
> > >
> > > ~Cindy
> > Yes, I think it does.
> Here is a very interesting article about Edward Dale, husband of Diana Skipwith: https://collation.folger.edu/2016/07/earliest-recorded-shakespeare-america/

Note the book's interesting flyleaf dedication, "Sir William Skipwith to Major Edw: Dale Sept:16: 1686."

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > >
> > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > >
> > > > ~Cindy
> > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> > >
> > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > >
> > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > >
> > > ~Cindy
> > One DNA test?
> > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf

I've just read this report and find it sound.
Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.

To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.

On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> > > >
> > > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > > >
> > > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > > >
> > > > ~Cindy
> > > One DNA test?
> > > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> > Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf
> I've just read this report and find it sound.
> Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.
>
> To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.

That report goes back in time to John Carter b. 1613, so it seems to me that it would be possible to have a DNA study that compared the DNA of descendants of Sir William Skipwith (son of Sir Grey Skipwith, Diana's brother) with the DNA of descendants of Mary Dale Humphrey, Elizabeth Dale Rogers, and Katherine Dale Carter to see what kind of relationship may exist. If well done, such a study might be the best/only way to definitively prove/disprove Katherine Dale Carter's maternity.

It might also be interesting to have a handwriting expert compare the handwriting of Thomas Carter and Edward Carter shown on that list of books in Edward Dale's library with the various handwritings in Thomas Carter's Prayerbook.

On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 7:02:52 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> > > > >
> > > > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > One DNA test?
> > > > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> > > Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf
> > I've just read this report and find it sound.
> > Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.
> >
> > To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.
> That report goes back in time to John Carter b. 1613, so it seems to me that it would be possible to have a DNA study that compared the DNA of descendants of Sir William Skipwith (son of Sir Grey Skipwith, Diana's brother) with the DNA of descendants of Mary Dale Humphrey, Elizabeth Dale Rogers, and Katherine Dale Carter to see what kind of relationship may exist. If well done, such a study might be the best/only way to definitively prove/disprove Katherine Dale Carter's maternity.
>
> It might also be interesting to have a handwriting expert compare the handwriting of Thomas Carter and Edward Carter shown on that list of books in Edward Dale's library with the various handwritings in Thomas Carter's Prayerbook.

It is much more problematic to compare DNA off daughter lines.
This is because you would have to use autosomal DNA at lest for part of the line, not proved or disproved by Y-DNA
You can show that chunks of autosomal DNA as large as 50cms can descend from the 1700s, but it takes an awful lot of work to establish that proof, and dozens if not a hundred DNA kits to establish the lines clearly

On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 7:02:52 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other..
> > > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > One DNA test?
> > > > > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> > > > Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf
> > > I've just read this report and find it sound.
> > > Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.
> > >
> > > To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.
> > That report goes back in time to John Carter b. 1613, so it seems to me that it would be possible to have a DNA study that compared the DNA of descendants of Sir William Skipwith (son of Sir Grey Skipwith, Diana's brother) with the DNA of descendants of Mary Dale Humphrey, Elizabeth Dale Rogers, and Katherine Dale Carter to see what kind of relationship may exist. If well done, such a study might be the best/only way to definitively prove/disprove Katherine Dale Carter's maternity.
> >
> > It might also be interesting to have a handwriting expert compare the handwriting of Thomas Carter and Edward Carter shown on that list of books in Edward Dale's library with the various handwritings in Thomas Carter's Prayerbook.
> It is much more problematic to compare DNA off daughter lines.
> This is because you would have to use autosomal DNA at lest for part of the line, not proved or disproved by Y-DNA
> You can show that chunks of autosomal DNA as large as 50cms can descend from the 1700s, but it takes an awful lot of work to establish that proof, and dozens if not a hundred DNA kits to establish the lines clearly

Thanks, Will. I thought it might be possible to get around that problem by comparing DNA from Sir Grey Skipwith's line to the DNA from a male descendant of Katherine Dale Carter, but I guess that wouldn't work. So it looks like we're back to differing opinions about Katherine's maternity unless/until someone discovers a document proving that Edward Dale had been married to someone before he married Diana Skipwith.

On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 8:41:39 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 7:02:52 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > One DNA test?
> > > > > > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> > > > > Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf
> > > > I've just read this report and find it sound.
> > > > Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.
> > > >
> > > > To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.
> > > That report goes back in time to John Carter b. 1613, so it seems to me that it would be possible to have a DNA study that compared the DNA of descendants of Sir William Skipwith (son of Sir Grey Skipwith, Diana's brother) with the DNA of descendants of Mary Dale Humphrey, Elizabeth Dale Rogers, and Katherine Dale Carter to see what kind of relationship may exist. If well done, such a study might be the best/only way to definitively prove/disprove Katherine Dale Carter's maternity.
> > >
> > > It might also be interesting to have a handwriting expert compare the handwriting of Thomas Carter and Edward Carter shown on that list of books in Edward Dale's library with the various handwritings in Thomas Carter's Prayerbook.
> > It is much more problematic to compare DNA off daughter lines.
> > This is because you would have to use autosomal DNA at lest for part of the line, not proved or disproved by Y-DNA
> > You can show that chunks of autosomal DNA as large as 50cms can descend from the 1700s, but it takes an awful lot of work to establish that proof, and dozens if not a hundred DNA kits to establish the lines clearly
> Thanks, Will. I thought it might be possible to get around that problem by comparing DNA from Sir Grey Skipwith's line to the DNA from a male descendant of Katherine Dale Carter, but I guess that wouldn't work. So it looks like we're back to differing opinions about Katherine's maternity unless/until someone discovers a document proving that Edward Dale had been married to someone before he married Diana Skipwith.

Well I would suggest before you go any further, that you confirm your own line using Autosomal DNA

On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 12:42:22 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 8:41:39 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 7:02:52 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H.. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted.. So
> > > > > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > One DNA test?
> > > > > > > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> > > > > > Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf
> > > > > I've just read this report and find it sound.
> > > > > Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.
> > > > >
> > > > > To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.
> > > > That report goes back in time to John Carter b. 1613, so it seems to me that it would be possible to have a DNA study that compared the DNA of descendants of Sir William Skipwith (son of Sir Grey Skipwith, Diana's brother) with the DNA of descendants of Mary Dale Humphrey, Elizabeth Dale Rogers, and Katherine Dale Carter to see what kind of relationship may exist. If well done, such a study might be the best/only way to definitively prove/disprove Katherine Dale Carter's maternity.
> > > >
> > > > It might also be interesting to have a handwriting expert compare the handwriting of Thomas Carter and Edward Carter shown on that list of books in Edward Dale's library with the various handwritings in Thomas Carter's Prayerbook.
> > > It is much more problematic to compare DNA off daughter lines.
> > > This is because you would have to use autosomal DNA at lest for part of the line, not proved or disproved by Y-DNA
> > > You can show that chunks of autosomal DNA as large as 50cms can descend from the 1700s, but it takes an awful lot of work to establish that proof, and dozens if not a hundred DNA kits to establish the lines clearly
> > Thanks, Will. I thought it might be possible to get around that problem by comparing DNA from Sir Grey Skipwith's line to the DNA from a male descendant of Katherine Dale Carter, but I guess that wouldn't work. So it looks like we're back to differing opinions about Katherine's maternity unless/until someone discovers a document proving that Edward Dale had been married to someone before he married Diana Skipwith.
> Well I would suggest before you go any further, that you confirm your own line using Autosomal DNA

A possibility, though a professional genealogist in Virginia recently traced my line back to Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale.

On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 12:42:22 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 8:41:39 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 7:02:52 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > One DNA test?
> > > > > > > > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> > > > > > > Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf
> > > > > > I've just read this report and find it sound.
> > > > > > Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.
> > > > > That report goes back in time to John Carter b. 1613, so it seems to me that it would be possible to have a DNA study that compared the DNA of descendants of Sir William Skipwith (son of Sir Grey Skipwith, Diana's brother) with the DNA of descendants of Mary Dale Humphrey, Elizabeth Dale Rogers, and Katherine Dale Carter to see what kind of relationship may exist.. If well done, such a study might be the best/only way to definitively prove/disprove Katherine Dale Carter's maternity.
> > > > >
> > > > > It might also be interesting to have a handwriting expert compare the handwriting of Thomas Carter and Edward Carter shown on that list of books in Edward Dale's library with the various handwritings in Thomas Carter's Prayerbook.
> > > > It is much more problematic to compare DNA off daughter lines.
> > > > This is because you would have to use autosomal DNA at lest for part of the line, not proved or disproved by Y-DNA
> > > > You can show that chunks of autosomal DNA as large as 50cms can descend from the 1700s, but it takes an awful lot of work to establish that proof, and dozens if not a hundred DNA kits to establish the lines clearly
> > > Thanks, Will. I thought it might be possible to get around that problem by comparing DNA from Sir Grey Skipwith's line to the DNA from a male descendant of Katherine Dale Carter, but I guess that wouldn't work. So it looks like we're back to differing opinions about Katherine's maternity unless/until someone discovers a document proving that Edward Dale had been married to someone before he married Diana Skipwith.
> > Well I would suggest before you go any further, that you confirm your own line using Autosomal DNA
> A possibility, though a professional genealogist in Virginia recently traced my line back to Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale.

Tracing a line through paper, is not worth anything, if you don't have the DNA evidence for yourself.
For all you know your 8th great-grandmother lied, and had sex with the neighbor and that's your real line

On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 7:36:43 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 12:42:22 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 8:41:39 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 7:02:52 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H.. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > > > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > One DNA test?
> > > > > > > > > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> > > > > > > > Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf
> > > > > > > I've just read this report and find it sound.
> > > > > > > Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.
> > > > > > That report goes back in time to John Carter b. 1613, so it seems to me that it would be possible to have a DNA study that compared the DNA of descendants of Sir William Skipwith (son of Sir Grey Skipwith, Diana's brother) with the DNA of descendants of Mary Dale Humphrey, Elizabeth Dale Rogers, and Katherine Dale Carter to see what kind of relationship may exist. If well done, such a study might be the best/only way to definitively prove/disprove Katherine Dale Carter's maternity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It might also be interesting to have a handwriting expert compare the handwriting of Thomas Carter and Edward Carter shown on that list of books in Edward Dale's library with the various handwritings in Thomas Carter's Prayerbook.
> > > > > It is much more problematic to compare DNA off daughter lines.
> > > > > This is because you would have to use autosomal DNA at lest for part of the line, not proved or disproved by Y-DNA
> > > > > You can show that chunks of autosomal DNA as large as 50cms can descend from the 1700s, but it takes an awful lot of work to establish that proof, and dozens if not a hundred DNA kits to establish the lines clearly
> > > > Thanks, Will. I thought it might be possible to get around that problem by comparing DNA from Sir Grey Skipwith's line to the DNA from a male descendant of Katherine Dale Carter, but I guess that wouldn't work. So it looks like we're back to differing opinions about Katherine's maternity unless/until someone discovers a document proving that Edward Dale had been married to someone before he married Diana Skipwith.
> > > Well I would suggest before you go any further, that you confirm your own line using Autosomal DNA
> > A possibility, though a professional genealogist in Virginia recently traced my line back to Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale.
> Tracing a line through paper, is not worth anything, if you don't have the DNA evidence for yourself.
> For all you know your 8th great-grandmother lied, and had sex with the neighbor and that's your real line

I do remember reading about DNA tests done on the skeleton of king Richard III after it was discovered. They showed a false paternity event, which raised questions about almost all the Plantagenets. However, I don't think researchers have identified exactly when the adulterous affair broke the paternal line. Apparently, it occurred somewhere between King Edward III and his descendants. I read that if John of Gaunt or his son Henry IV was illegitimate, then the royal line was lost. To discover when it occurred, researchers would have to exhume a lot of skeletons and do DNA tests on them. It seems that will not happen.

On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:36:43 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 12:42:22 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 8:41:39 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 7:02:52 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H.. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > > > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > One DNA test?
> > > > > > > > > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> > > > > > > > Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf
> > > > > > > I've just read this report and find it sound.
> > > > > > > Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.
> > > > > > That report goes back in time to John Carter b. 1613, so it seems to me that it would be possible to have a DNA study that compared the DNA of descendants of Sir William Skipwith (son of Sir Grey Skipwith, Diana's brother) with the DNA of descendants of Mary Dale Humphrey, Elizabeth Dale Rogers, and Katherine Dale Carter to see what kind of relationship may exist. If well done, such a study might be the best/only way to definitively prove/disprove Katherine Dale Carter's maternity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It might also be interesting to have a handwriting expert compare the handwriting of Thomas Carter and Edward Carter shown on that list of books in Edward Dale's library with the various handwritings in Thomas Carter's Prayerbook.
> > > > > It is much more problematic to compare DNA off daughter lines.
> > > > > This is because you would have to use autosomal DNA at lest for part of the line, not proved or disproved by Y-DNA
> > > > > You can show that chunks of autosomal DNA as large as 50cms can descend from the 1700s, but it takes an awful lot of work to establish that proof, and dozens if not a hundred DNA kits to establish the lines clearly
> > > > Thanks, Will. I thought it might be possible to get around that problem by comparing DNA from Sir Grey Skipwith's line to the DNA from a male descendant of Katherine Dale Carter, but I guess that wouldn't work. So it looks like we're back to differing opinions about Katherine's maternity unless/until someone discovers a document proving that Edward Dale had been married to someone before he married Diana Skipwith.
> > > Well I would suggest before you go any further, that you confirm your own line using Autosomal DNA
> > A possibility, though a professional genealogist in Virginia recently traced my line back to Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale.
> Tracing a line through paper, is not worth anything, if you don't have the DNA evidence for yourself.
> For all you know your 8th great-grandmother lied, and had sex with the neighbor and that's your real line

Will, you're being an a-hole. You know damned well that genealogy is not based on DNA.

On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 11:29:12 AM UTC-4, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:36:43 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 12:42:22 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 8:41:39 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 7:02:52 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > One DNA test?
> > > > > > > > > > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> > > > > > > > > Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf
> > > > > > > > I've just read this report and find it sound.
> > > > > > > > Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.
> > > > > > > That report goes back in time to John Carter b. 1613, so it seems to me that it would be possible to have a DNA study that compared the DNA of descendants of Sir William Skipwith (son of Sir Grey Skipwith, Diana's brother) with the DNA of descendants of Mary Dale Humphrey, Elizabeth Dale Rogers, and Katherine Dale Carter to see what kind of relationship may exist. If well done, such a study might be the best/only way to definitively prove/disprove Katherine Dale Carter's maternity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It might also be interesting to have a handwriting expert compare the handwriting of Thomas Carter and Edward Carter shown on that list of books in Edward Dale's library with the various handwritings in Thomas Carter's Prayerbook.
> > > > > > It is much more problematic to compare DNA off daughter lines.
> > > > > > This is because you would have to use autosomal DNA at lest for part of the line, not proved or disproved by Y-DNA
> > > > > > You can show that chunks of autosomal DNA as large as 50cms can descend from the 1700s, but it takes an awful lot of work to establish that proof, and dozens if not a hundred DNA kits to establish the lines clearly
> > > > > Thanks, Will. I thought it might be possible to get around that problem by comparing DNA from Sir Grey Skipwith's line to the DNA from a male descendant of Katherine Dale Carter, but I guess that wouldn't work. So it looks like we're back to differing opinions about Katherine's maternity unless/until someone discovers a document proving that Edward Dale had been married to someone before he married Diana Skipwith.
> > > > Well I would suggest before you go any further, that you confirm your own line using Autosomal DNA
> > > A possibility, though a professional genealogist in Virginia recently traced my line back to Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale.
> > Tracing a line through paper, is not worth anything, if you don't have the DNA evidence for yourself.
> > For all you know your 8th great-grandmother lied, and had sex with the neighbor and that's your real line
> Will, you're being an a-hole. You know damned well that genealogy is not based on DNA.

Here's a very interesting article about the DNA test involving Richard III: http://www.citigen.org/2017/03/17/could-a-dna-test-unthrone-the-british-royalty/

On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:35:04 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 11:29:12 AM UTC-4, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:36:43 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 12:42:22 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 8:41:39 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 7:02:52 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E.. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > > One DNA test?
> > > > > > > > > > > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> > > > > > > > > > Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf
> > > > > > > > > I've just read this report and find it sound.
> > > > > > > > > Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.
> > > > > > > > That report goes back in time to John Carter b. 1613, so it seems to me that it would be possible to have a DNA study that compared the DNA of descendants of Sir William Skipwith (son of Sir Grey Skipwith, Diana's brother) with the DNA of descendants of Mary Dale Humphrey, Elizabeth Dale Rogers, and Katherine Dale Carter to see what kind of relationship may exist. If well done, such a study might be the best/only way to definitively prove/disprove Katherine Dale Carter's maternity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It might also be interesting to have a handwriting expert compare the handwriting of Thomas Carter and Edward Carter shown on that list of books in Edward Dale's library with the various handwritings in Thomas Carter's Prayerbook.
> > > > > > > It is much more problematic to compare DNA off daughter lines..
> > > > > > > This is because you would have to use autosomal DNA at lest for part of the line, not proved or disproved by Y-DNA
> > > > > > > You can show that chunks of autosomal DNA as large as 50cms can descend from the 1700s, but it takes an awful lot of work to establish that proof, and dozens if not a hundred DNA kits to establish the lines clearly
> > > > > > Thanks, Will. I thought it might be possible to get around that problem by comparing DNA from Sir Grey Skipwith's line to the DNA from a male descendant of Katherine Dale Carter, but I guess that wouldn't work. So it looks like we're back to differing opinions about Katherine's maternity unless/until someone discovers a document proving that Edward Dale had been married to someone before he married Diana Skipwith.
> > > > > Well I would suggest before you go any further, that you confirm your own line using Autosomal DNA
> > > > A possibility, though a professional genealogist in Virginia recently traced my line back to Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale.
> > > Tracing a line through paper, is not worth anything, if you don't have the DNA evidence for yourself.
> > > For all you know your 8th great-grandmother lied, and had sex with the neighbor and that's your real line
> > Will, you're being an a-hole. You know damned well that genealogy is not based on DNA.
> Here's a very interesting article about the DNA test involving Richard III: http://www.citigen.org/2017/03/17/could-a-dna-test-unthrone-the-british-royalty/

The Plantagenet male-line descent as a basis for the "legitimacy of British royal lineages" was overthrown with the Tudor conquest or "seizure" of the throne in 1485. So it's a little late to wonder about this.

On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:35:04 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 11:29:12 AM UTC-4, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:36:43 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 12:42:22 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 8:41:39 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 7:02:52 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H.. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I..E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > > > One DNA test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> > > > > > > > > > > Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > I've just read this report and find it sound.
> > > > > > > > > > Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.
> > > > > > > > > That report goes back in time to John Carter b. 1613, so it seems to me that it would be possible to have a DNA study that compared the DNA of descendants of Sir William Skipwith (son of Sir Grey Skipwith, Diana's brother) with the DNA of descendants of Mary Dale Humphrey, Elizabeth Dale Rogers, and Katherine Dale Carter to see what kind of relationship may exist. If well done, such a study might be the best/only way to definitively prove/disprove Katherine Dale Carter's maternity.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It might also be interesting to have a handwriting expert compare the handwriting of Thomas Carter and Edward Carter shown on that list of books in Edward Dale's library with the various handwritings in Thomas Carter's Prayerbook.
> > > > > > > > It is much more problematic to compare DNA off daughter lines.
> > > > > > > > This is because you would have to use autosomal DNA at lest for part of the line, not proved or disproved by Y-DNA
> > > > > > > > You can show that chunks of autosomal DNA as large as 50cms can descend from the 1700s, but it takes an awful lot of work to establish that proof, and dozens if not a hundred DNA kits to establish the lines clearly
> > > > > > > Thanks, Will. I thought it might be possible to get around that problem by comparing DNA from Sir Grey Skipwith's line to the DNA from a male descendant of Katherine Dale Carter, but I guess that wouldn't work. So it looks like we're back to differing opinions about Katherine's maternity unless/until someone discovers a document proving that Edward Dale had been married to someone before he married Diana Skipwith.
> > > > > > Well I would suggest before you go any further, that you confirm your own line using Autosomal DNA
> > > > > A possibility, though a professional genealogist in Virginia recently traced my line back to Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale.
> > > > Tracing a line through paper, is not worth anything, if you don't have the DNA evidence for yourself.
> > > > For all you know your 8th great-grandmother lied, and had sex with the neighbor and that's your real line
> > > Will, you're being an a-hole. You know damned well that genealogy is not based on DNA.
> > Here's a very interesting article about the DNA test involving Richard III: http://www.citigen.org/2017/03/17/could-a-dna-test-unthrone-the-british-royalty/
> The Plantagenet male-line descent as a basis for the "legitimacy of British royal lineages" was overthrown with the Tudor conquest or "seizure" of the throne in 1485. So it's a little late to wonder about this.

On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 6:08:59 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:35:04 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 11:29:12 AM UTC-4, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:36:43 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 12:42:22 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 8:41:39 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 7:02:52 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-4, wjhons....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > One DNA test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > I've just read this report and find it sound.
> > > > > > > > > > > Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.
> > > > > > > > > > That report goes back in time to John Carter b. 1613, so it seems to me that it would be possible to have a DNA study that compared the DNA of descendants of Sir William Skipwith (son of Sir Grey Skipwith, Diana's brother) with the DNA of descendants of Mary Dale Humphrey, Elizabeth Dale Rogers, and Katherine Dale Carter to see what kind of relationship may exist. If well done, such a study might be the best/only way to definitively prove/disprove Katherine Dale Carter's maternity.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It might also be interesting to have a handwriting expert compare the handwriting of Thomas Carter and Edward Carter shown on that list of books in Edward Dale's library with the various handwritings in Thomas Carter's Prayerbook.
> > > > > > > > > It is much more problematic to compare DNA off daughter lines.
> > > > > > > > > This is because you would have to use autosomal DNA at lest for part of the line, not proved or disproved by Y-DNA
> > > > > > > > > You can show that chunks of autosomal DNA as large as 50cms can descend from the 1700s, but it takes an awful lot of work to establish that proof, and dozens if not a hundred DNA kits to establish the lines clearly
> > > > > > > > Thanks, Will. I thought it might be possible to get around that problem by comparing DNA from Sir Grey Skipwith's line to the DNA from a male descendant of Katherine Dale Carter, but I guess that wouldn't work.. So it looks like we're back to differing opinions about Katherine's maternity unless/until someone discovers a document proving that Edward Dale had been married to someone before he married Diana Skipwith.
> > > > > > > Well I would suggest before you go any further, that you confirm your own line using Autosomal DNA
> > > > > > A possibility, though a professional genealogist in Virginia recently traced my line back to Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale.
> > > > > Tracing a line through paper, is not worth anything, if you don't have the DNA evidence for yourself.
> > > > > For all you know your 8th great-grandmother lied, and had sex with the neighbor and that's your real line
> > > > Will, you're being an a-hole. You know damned well that genealogy is not based on DNA.
> > > Here's a very interesting article about the DNA test involving Richard III: http://www.citigen.org/2017/03/17/could-a-dna-test-unthrone-the-british-royalty/
> > The Plantagenet male-line descent as a basis for the "legitimacy of British royal lineages" was overthrown with the Tudor conquest or "seizure" of the throne in 1485. So it's a little late to wonder about this.
> It's true that Henry VII declared himself king by the judgment of God and right of conquest when he won the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. However, in order to be secure, he had to convince the Yorkists of his claim. He descended from John of Gaunt (Duke of Lancaster and son of Edward III) in the Beaufort line. Having John of Gaunt as an ancestor solidified his claim, as did his marriage to Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, which united the two houses, the red rose of Lancaster and the white rose of York. So the fact that both Henry VII and Elizabeth of York descended from Edward III was important to establish Henry's legitimacy as the first Tudor king.

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 9:54:03 AM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 6:08:59 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:35:04 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 11:29:12 AM UTC-4, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:36:43 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 12:42:22 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 8:41:39 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 7:02:52 PM UTC-7, Cindy H.. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > One DNA test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've just read this report and find it sound.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.
> > > > > > > > > > > That report goes back in time to John Carter b. 1613, so it seems to me that it would be possible to have a DNA study that compared the DNA of descendants of Sir William Skipwith (son of Sir Grey Skipwith, Diana's brother) with the DNA of descendants of Mary Dale Humphrey, Elizabeth Dale Rogers, and Katherine Dale Carter to see what kind of relationship may exist. If well done, such a study might be the best/only way to definitively prove/disprove Katherine Dale Carter's maternity.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It might also be interesting to have a handwriting expert compare the handwriting of Thomas Carter and Edward Carter shown on that list of books in Edward Dale's library with the various handwritings in Thomas Carter's Prayerbook.
> > > > > > > > > > It is much more problematic to compare DNA off daughter lines.
> > > > > > > > > > This is because you would have to use autosomal DNA at lest for part of the line, not proved or disproved by Y-DNA
> > > > > > > > > > You can show that chunks of autosomal DNA as large as 50cms can descend from the 1700s, but it takes an awful lot of work to establish that proof, and dozens if not a hundred DNA kits to establish the lines clearly
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will. I thought it might be possible to get around that problem by comparing DNA from Sir Grey Skipwith's line to the DNA from a male descendant of Katherine Dale Carter, but I guess that wouldn't work. So it looks like we're back to differing opinions about Katherine's maternity unless/until someone discovers a document proving that Edward Dale had been married to someone before he married Diana Skipwith.
> > > > > > > > Well I would suggest before you go any further, that you confirm your own line using Autosomal DNA
> > > > > > > A possibility, though a professional genealogist in Virginia recently traced my line back to Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale.
> > > > > > Tracing a line through paper, is not worth anything, if you don't have the DNA evidence for yourself.
> > > > > > For all you know your 8th great-grandmother lied, and had sex with the neighbor and that's your real line
> > > > > Will, you're being an a-hole. You know damned well that genealogy is not based on DNA.
> > > > Here's a very interesting article about the DNA test involving Richard III: http://www.citigen.org/2017/03/17/could-a-dna-test-unthrone-the-british-royalty/
> > > The Plantagenet male-line descent as a basis for the "legitimacy of British royal lineages" was overthrown with the Tudor conquest or "seizure" of the throne in 1485. So it's a little late to wonder about this.
> > It's true that Henry VII declared himself king by the judgment of God and right of conquest when he won the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. However, in order to be secure, he had to convince the Yorkists of his claim. He descended from John of Gaunt (Duke of Lancaster and son of Edward III) in the Beaufort line. Having John of Gaunt as an ancestor solidified his claim, as did his marriage to Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, which united the two houses, the red rose of Lancaster and the white rose of York. So the fact that both Henry VII and Elizabeth of York descended from Edward III was important to establish Henry's legitimacy as the first Tudor king.
> I was referring specifically to the message embedded in the URL: "could-a-dna-test-unthrone-the-british-royalty".
>
> Right, the perceived kingly claims of Henry VII were rather bolstered by his and wife's several descents from Edward III, but Henry and Elizabeth were both descended only through a mix of males and females, not in a strict male-line descent. The non-paternity event which caused the difference between Richard III and other royal scions or possible heirs would have been moot after a few years of successful Tudor rule, let alone sixty or seventy.