Curious... could you/would you post the response? If someone of Richardson's experience stands behind the line, then why should the "not proved" side prevail? I would love to see his response if you are able to quote it.
Such appeals to authority are never a good approach to genealogy. While one should be careful in following the conclusions of novices, one can be led down the garden path by simply basing one's conclusions on personalities rather than the strength of the evidence. The 'not proved' side should prevail if they have made the better case, with sounder sources and logic, and vice versa, no matter who is on which side.
taf
I appreciate the response, and yes it is true, but not all people can approach something from that neutral place and keep a clear head!
So who decides who has made the better case? So far I haven't seen compelling evidence that would lead to not proven, and yet it is being defended as if there is a smoking gun definitively tossing out Richardson's conclusions. I see two people who are unmoved by any logic or sourcing which refutes their "disproven" mindset and in fact are rude about it frankly. That's certainly not a good approach either. I have found this sort of posturing in other places when it comes to native ancestry or nationalistic ancestral conflicts, and it never ends because of the same attitude. I just wanted to know why Richardson is so sure of his conclusions and work from there, but evidently that is even too much for those people I have just mentioned- hence this "Ho-hum.... It's no surprise that Richardson criticizes Boaz's criticism of Richardson's identification of Mary Machell." example. That's not a valid response in my mind... it sounds more like backbiting.
I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't know any of the parties arguing about the line, but when someone asked about it I wanted to put forth an effort to understand why they were asking, and frankly I think those involved need to tone it down and stick to the facts and logic.
D. E. Larocque