<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sutton &#038; Clonard: a case study in genealogical fantasy</title>
	<link>http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/archives/145</link>
	<description>reflections on genealogy and memory — part of nltaylor.net</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:53:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: a genealogist&#8217;s sketchbook &#8250; Sutton and Dudley: Grazebrook&#8217;s study</title>
		<link>http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/archives/145#comment-6531</link>
		<author>a genealogist&#8217;s sketchbook &#8250; Sutton and Dudley: Grazebrook&#8217;s study</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 01:38:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/archives/145#comment-6531</guid>
		<description>[...] Grazebrook: there is no room for the alleged descent of the Wexford, Ireland Suttons (a quo the condes de Clonard &#38; comtes de Clonard) from the first Lord Dudley.    This was written by Nat Taylor. Posted on Thursday, September 18, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Grazebrook: there is no room for the alleged descent of the Wexford, Ireland Suttons (a quo the condes de Clonard &#38; comtes de Clonard) from the first Lord Dudley.    This was written by Nat Taylor. Posted on Thursday, September 18, [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: a genealogist&#8217;s sketchbook &#8250; More on the Conde de Clonard</title>
		<link>http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/archives/145#comment-4662</link>
		<author>a genealogist&#8217;s sketchbook &#8250; More on the Conde de Clonard</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:50:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/archives/145#comment-4662</guid>
		<description>[...] Conde de Clonard has penned a predictable response to an earlier entry in my blog in which I made note of his absurd genealogical claims. The best part of his rant is that it [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Conde de Clonard has penned a predictable response to an earlier entry in my blog in which I made note of his absurd genealogical claims. The best part of his rant is that it [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
