From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message <70781f05-2c45-417f-b593-397df4a75746@googlegroups.com>,   
   Sharon  writes:   
   >On Friday, 6 July 2018 05:53:08 UTC+8, Sharon  wrote:   
   >> For some reason I have in my head that the right to arms requires 3   
   >>pieces of evidence.   
   >   
   >Thanks for all the interesting responses, what prompted me to post was   
   >I run a reasonably large one place study group on FB which has a lot of   
   >beginners, so I ended up writing some guidelines for researching and   
   >proof. The "3 pieces of evidence" statement sprang to mind from my   
   >early years, and I googled but could find no mention of this quote that   
   >managed to stick in my head. I wrote my guidelines based on the GPS,   
      
   I keep seeing this "GPS", but I'll be the one to come forward and say I   
   don't know what it means! Other than the Global Positioning Satellite   
   network, or (in USA) a navigation device that uses it (in UK, we tend to   
   call such a device "a SatNav"), which I'm sure you don't mean!   
      
   >however yesterday I was on another FB help group and saw "the golden   
   >rule is two pieces of evidence"...hmmmm... I'm thinking...so, I had   
      
   For giving guidance to newcomers, I'd say three - or, at a pinch, two -   
   is a good rule of thumb: as long as you stress the importance of   
   ensuring that the two or three are _independent_, i. e. one is not   
   derived from the other, or both from the same source. (The most obvious   
   example being trees on Ancestry [and the like], which copy each other   
   like wildfire.)   
   []   
   >referred me to the 3 legged-stool analogy which she had heard in   
   >reference to proof.   
      
   Hmm, not sure that's a good one: a four-legged stool is less stable than   
   a three-, but in genealogy the more sources (as long as they're truly   
   independent!) the better.   
      
   >The coat of arms discussion IS interesting as there is one for my   
   >maiden name, but also recorded as died out, however I do believe a   
   >blood connection to that family is highly likely, but with paper trails   
      
   That's an interesting question: if a line did die out, but a blood   
   connection some way back can be proved, can the right be established, or   
   does the right adhere strictly to something (such as the male line?) and   
   can't be changed?   
      
   >in the civil war period being almost impossible particularly from   
   >Australia that's an ongoing project.   
   >Finally, good to hear from you Ian,   
   >Cheers and thanks everyone,   
   >Sharon   
      
   You're welcome; I agree, you generally get intelligent discourse here.   
   Not sure I've contributed any direct knowledge on this one, but I hope   
   some of my questions at least have helped clarify. (Or just been   
   interesting, in QI spirit!)   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   "Grammar is there to help, not hinder."   
     -- Mark Wallace, APIHNA, 2nd December 2000 (quoted by John Flynn 2000-12-6)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)