Thanks again Bill.May take you up on offer down line.
I understand & appreciate your comment (not quoting here) that just because it can't be proven it is not necessarily wrong.Somebody in my ancetral line pointed that out by saying "Insofar as I'm concerned my ancestral lines go back to 1066, William the Conqueror and beyond.Proof, proof?Everyone wants proof.Well, let them prove I'M wrong!!". Problem with that it really is not scientific.Is it? Fact is about the turn of the 1900's an author named A.L. Rowse wrote on Winston Churchill, giving a rundown on his ancestry.The book, in which Rowse claimed endorsement from Winston, states that the Winston of the 1500's concocted ancestral lines for the sake of constructing an impressive background.Rowse further claimed that scholars have disproven Winston's ancient ancestral claims. Yet, though Rowse's book is widely acclaimed, the ancient, ancestral blood lines concocted by 'ol Winston is still alive and well, particularly on the internet. The other point I make, as many others have before me, WHAT internet source DO I believe?It is not like there is a single choice but, rather, a small variety. I have spent hour-upon-hour not only in checking genealogy on the internet, but, in reading books on the subject. Dispite its shortfalls, I certainly believe in the internet.Since, however, I am doing field research on the Churchills, it would be nice if people would not quote sources in a factual manner, if, IN FACT, they know not what they do.Report, by all means, but try to name the source and whether the data if verified. One problem on the internet is once data is recorded on sources such as LDS, that data, apparently, is never, at least, seldom, corrected if in error (which it often is). I'm not referring to bulletin boards because a lot of folks start there and it's good to keep it less sophisticated. I have learned from you, for example - only because there is a bulletin board.So, again thank you.Hope to see you again on internet, dwc.