As you state, we aren't far apart.I didn't feel any of your comments were in any way out of line, or "reflecting adversely on your research."Of course you would have no particular way of knowing what I have in that regard. Your statements I considered very well informed.
I'm also not willing to make the general statement that no Orcutt is related to any Urquhart based upon the limited DNA testing alone. Of course there isno way of knowing until testing is done.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean in 3;
3. "The statement that all Orcutts are members of Clan Urquhart is correct if it does not state a blood relationship (a blood relationship not being required for clan membership)."
I cannot understand how the Urquharts would be able to correctly make that statement, which implies it's at their discretion to decide that people are members of their Clan, even if those persons aren't related, and show no particular desire to be Clan members. If a blood relationship is not required, I can understand if the Urquhart Clan might say that they would accept any Orcutts that wanted to be Clan members anyway, for whatever reason they deem good, (that is at their discretion)but surely they wouldn't presume to declare Orcutts that have no proven, or obvious connection, or association with them, "members of the Clan Urquhart."
Also, there are other Orcutts in England (Orcutt is an English surname as you probably already know).
DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN FAMILY NAMES
ELSDON C. SMITH
HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS1956
“ Orcutt (Eng.) Dweller in a hillside, or riverbank, cottage.”
Are all these English Orcutts/Alcotts/Aucotts/Howcotes automatically assumedto be members of the Clan Urquhart?
Edsons in England and America andGenealogy of the Edsons,
by Jarvis Bonesteel Edson Of the City of New York,The Knickerbocker Press
27 west 23rd street New York, New York, 1903.
"The Orcutt family, as the Edson, had long been seated in Warwickshire.The surname appears to be an etymological modification of the French compound, Orcote, which in England became corrupted into Alcott, Orcutt, Aucott, and Howcote."
The various statements some of the Urquharts, and Orcutts have made that I reffered to as being "patently false" in no way was directed at anyone's integrity. I am speakng as to the content of the statement itself, not the person.I wasn't brought up that way. There was meant nothing to insinuate in any way the person saying these things did so with any malice, or intent to purposely decieve anyone. They unforunately just had no real handle on what was factual in regard to the Orcutts, and were no doubt relying heavily on what some Orcutt=Urquhart advocates have mistakenly been presenting to them all along as"facts", and "proof".As there had been no DNA testing that proved an Orcutt genetically unrelated to the Urquharts at that time, perhaps that canalso be considered somewhat of a factor. I just hope that in the future they will take all the "facts" into consideration, as you and I do.
Also, they might have been wise to take a look at even a small portion of the large amount of genealogical research results regarding this issue some of us have offered many times to share with them. None have indicated the least interest in considering what evidence we have, and how good it might be. I think all of us have an measure of responsibility in trying to learn and know all aspects, and sides of the specific issues we are addressing.
In regard to 5;
I didn't expect anyone should pay for my DNA testing but me. I had the test done, but because it was the 12 marker test of which 9 dys compared with the Urquhart there was an theory immediately formulated by one of the Orcutts that champion Orcutt=Urquhart that my test, which clearly showed no relationship between myself and the other men's test, was not valid. I explained, to the point of e-mailing my personal correspondence to and from the lab that done the testing that is was perfectly reliable to use for comparison, comparison had beem made, and the determination was a solid "no relationship". That wouldn't do, though, and met dogged resitance that the "only way" to be able to accurately determine Urquhart/Orcutt DNA was to use the same exact test, was being put forth as factual. You might imagine I didn't particularly appreciate having been asked to participate, gladly did so, but then the results didn't reflect what they were looking for, thus the test was " not accurate"!Talk about setting a good example to encourage people to NOT participate in DNA testing!Being the rather easy pushover of a guy that I am, I did the second test to prove the first test WAS totally accurate. I would strongly advise anyone else pushed into a corner this way to kindly ask the person making the allegation if they would like to cough up the cash to prove their theory :)
As I stated last message, I'm pretty much out of the Urquhart/Orcutt DNA issue now. At the risk of sounding a tad bit selfish, I know for myself what I wanted to know, and what happens next is more important to the persons still directly involved, than me.