"Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
D. Spencer Hines

"Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 okt 2007 01:43:10

Many people seem to be badly confused about these terms, including Pogue
Thompson, who is thoroughly bollixed, discombobulated and confused as to
their characteristics, uses, incongruities and absurdities.

Let's start with the harder one first and then the other will be easier to
understand.

The term "COLLATERAL DESCENDANT" is often grossly misused.

If both D and E are descendants of A, say by different sons, B and C, they
can be described as "collateral descendants" of A -- but it is much more
intelligent, clear, coherent, precise and concise to describe them as 1ST
COUSINS.

However if D is descended from A while E is descended from K, a brother of
A, but NOT from A it is ENTIRELY INCORRECT & INDEED IDIOTIC to describe E as
a "Collateral Descendant" of A.

Some beginner pogues and poguettes in Genealogy who carelessly and loosely
employ this term "Collateral Descendant" are often doing it because they are
descended from K but not from A, who is MORE FAMOUS, ROYAL or NOTORIOUS
[those categories often overlap] and they want to impress the groundlings by
saying THEY THEMSELVES are "Collateral Descendants" of A.

For example, some rampant little poseur pogue may say "I am a collateral
descendant of King Henry VII of England", when he is not descended from
Henry VII at all but from some other lesser figure.

No Sale...

One is either a descendant of Henry VII or not at all. One cannot have a
"COLLATERAL DESCENT" from him.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»