Re: THE MYTH OF WILLIAM BOLLING AND AMELIA RANDOLPH
Coleen, I realize your question wasn't meant for me, but may I ask a question just to make sure I understand yours?
You seem to be saying - and this appears to be a growing trend in this forum - that if presumed "ancestors X and Y" who supposedly lived in the mid-1700s are discovered through research to have been misidentified, then all of their "descendants" stand accused of not having existed.Am I getting this right Coleen or am I missing something here?
Isn't there a reasonable alternative?If "ancestors X and Y" were the product of a false lineage fabricated in order to "prove" descent from Pocahontas, doesn't it stand to reason that "X and Y" were created to replace real people?
The names you cite in your message would have followed, chronologically, the mid-1700s ancestors, right?So if there's been a misunderstanding about the identities of those ancestors the remedy would be to correct the record, would it not?
I'm afraid I might be misunderstanding your question so please, by all means, set me straight.But I think I've seen it before in a slightly different form, something like "If William and Amelia didn't exist, then who's typing this message?"I think the answer's pretty obvious: the mid-1700s ancestors have been misidentified, something far from uncommon in family histories.Am I missing something?Thanks very much.Fred