There's a turn up.

When I research a person, I use original sources – as far as possible. This sometimes discloses a mismatch with other researchers who’ve traced the same character. Mostly, my research reveals the same or similar results. Nonetheless, reading another’s outcome prejudices investigation. It’s surprising how often information is reproduced without questioning the process by which the originator arrived at their hypothesis. There is no reason to assume another researchers’ work is correct, incorrect, or is acting honestly, dishonestly, is or isn’t just plain barking.

Note to self and advice to other researches – and a gift from my old lecturer after I’d delivered a ten-page essay and managed to avoid, in the word storm, answering the question: Question, doubt, and ask that huge three-letter word, WHY? Follow that up with, HOW? But do not assume you know, or they know. They might be correct. You could be accurate. But how do you know?

This is the second time, by this process, I’ve arrived at a distinct data subset from other researchers. I don’t know which is correct – not yet, maybe never. The (main) character within this grouping has little-recorded background, but suddenly I’m looking at a set of surnames I’ve previously encountered – when examining another individual.

It’s intriguing but also a time-consuming distraction. It’s not what I expected, but I can’t ignore it. I’ll attempt to understand the ramifications of this ‘discovery’ if I can establish a relationship between these people – later.