My criticism to the term 'direct descendant' is very much tongue-in-cheek.
Don't take it too seriously. I believe you are a descendant or you are not.
If you have a direct descendant is there also a indirect descendant? This
is
what I don't like. I prefer it if people say Dracula is an 'ancestral
uncle'
of Prince Charles, then you know what they are saying.
I know sometimes people talk about about ancestor meaning predecessor, but
it is still the wrong use of the language (I think).
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. Battle" <battle@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: An Americans muddle with genealogy
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Leo van de Pas wrote:
snip
Page 16. Michael Wilding descends from John of Gaunt? How? "He was a
direct descendant of the archbishop of Canterbury who crowned Queen
Victoria." Direct descendant? Or an indirect descendant? I understand
a
person is a descendant (or ancestor) or not. By using the word direct
it
seems to imply a full male line of descent. In 1837 William Howley was
Archbishop of Canterbury, not a Wilding.
snip
Page 41 Charles Coburn is directly descended from Roger Williams.
Again
I doubt it, wrong term. He may be a descendant but not a direct (in
the
male line) descendant.
snip
The term "direct descendant" refers to what we would think of as an
actual
descendant, as opposed to something like a "collateral descendant." It
is
certainly redundant if the proper terms are used, but it does not refer
solely to the male line (which would be a "male-line" or "agnatic"). It
seems that this author is using the term "descendant" more loosely than
we
would like and so needs the "direct" to distinguish actual ancestors
from
mere relatives.
-Robert Battle