Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / British History / October 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
D. Spencer Hines - 23 Oct 2007 18:51 GMT
Now, having resolved the question of "Collateral Descendants", [vide infra]
let's take up the far simpler issue of "Direct Descendants".

ALL descendants of a GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, A, are "direct descendants" -- none
are "indirect" or "collateral" descendants.

So, the word "DIRECT" adds no useful meaning to the word descendant -- the
word "DIRECT" is excess baggage, redundant, incongruous, unsuitable ---- and
therefore an oxymoron.

So, it can be excised and deleted.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
----------------------------------------

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
John Briggs - 23 Oct 2007 18:54 GMT
> Now, having resolved the question of "Collateral Descendants", [vide
> infra] let's take up the far simpler issue of "Direct Descendants".
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> 'Nuff Said.

Do you want to comment on "Direct Capetians"?
Signature

John Briggs

D. Spencer Hines - 23 Oct 2007 19:41 GMT
A _Collateral Heir_ and a _Collateral Descendent_ are, of course, QUITE
different things.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.