Ginny, what you say is very true. Before census returns (UK only from 1841) we have to rely on church registers for information about our forebears. The more 'ordinary/humble' we were the more difficult it is to find stuff. No Wills written, no important marriages, no part played in politics/Royal hangers-on etc. Court roles and signs of criminal activity are often the only info. available. ;-) In Mary's eg someone must have been able trace a named ancestor(s) probably of noble birth, back through the ages via heraldic/genealogical links to Scotland and then to Normandy. Normally this would be very difficult as Scotland was a separate Kingdom so it must have been an important marriage of top families . Mary, I bow the knee to you and hope you wont treat us with aristocratic disdain. I saw a TV prog dealing with the DNA from unearthed human remains. An experiment was done on the 'Somerset Levels', marshy ground inhabited by 'Lake-Dwellers' several thousand years ago. The DNA from folk who's families had lived in the now dried out area for several generations matched some of the molocules that had been found in the bones. Maybe it was what you saw, Ginny? Below is an eg from the TV prog Who Do You Think You Are? where the participant traced his family back to Edward 1 . . . and eventually back to God. So there must be hope for us all. Here is a link that might be useful: Who Do You Think You Are?

I found this site by accident, looking up the spelling of Andre Gromeko's name---what a pleasure! My two cents are: Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter? Not if you 've read the books, I say. I don't think Daniel gets even close to the character that Rowling conceived. Nor does the child who plays Hermione. The Ron Weasley actor, though, I think is the best of the three. Someone from England asked if we Americans notice the accent issues in movies. Remember Meryl Streep and Robert Redford in Out of Africa? Streep, as usual with her wonderful ear for accents, maintained her British personna throughout. Redford, on the other hand, started out with a semblance of an accent, but this deteriorated quickly until he just seemed to sort of give up, and just spoke pure American. If you want to hear an amazing accent, watch Tommorow, a movie starring Robert Duvall. He takes on a backwoods accent and voice that are just astonishing. I agree with those who say that watching the movie after reading the book can be disappointing. Now and then, there are some movie makers who captured the real nature and tone and voice of the book, and even if they have to cut a lot, it doesn't lose the feel of the book. One such, I think, was Prince of Tides. The movie left out probably 2/3s of the book, and Barbra Streisand, with her self-beloved long fingernails, wasn't the ideal psychiatrist. But nevertheless, the movie, i thought, captured the tone of the book very well. I agree that Glenda JAckson was one of the best Queen Elizabehts, and that Maggie Smith absolutely is Miss Brodie. Also that Richard Harris was a wonderful Professor Dumbledore, while Michael Gambon--who is a terrific actor; see The Singing Detective and The Butcher, the Thief, His Wife and her Lover--is just not the kindly, deep, thoughtful Dumbledore at all. Another case of one wondering What the Director Was Thinking.

lacey-when you try to do several quick posts to one thread, the site does get cranky. all you need to do is change the text in the "subject of posting" box above the message box, and it will accept your subsequent posts. weird, but true! Lady Jane Grey is an enigma, and thus an easy subject to "historic-fictionalize." Carolly Erickson, whom I have enjoyed as a biographer for many years, has been seduced by the success of the Other Boleyn Girl series into doing one of Lady Jane...imho, greatly inferior to her bios of the Tudors. sigh.

There probably are maintenance issues. It's an older house. It might need new wiring and pipes, for instance. Known faults must be disclosed by law in California (but in an old house they may not be known), and it is usual, especially if there's going to be a mortgage, to have a thorough inspection. I'd think they'd have a standard systems and structure inspection, plus a geologic one because it's on a hill. So, what usually happens after an inspection is that there's a negotiation over how the results affect the already offered and accepted purchase price. Seller remediation may be negotiated as well, with the repairs done (or hired) and paid for by the seller before the close of escrow. In an "as is" sale, the offer amount is firm, including all faults and needed repairs, and there is no remediation. Additionally, it can be code for the sellers won't allow inspections. Some people might figure half a million dollars will go straight into maintenance issues of the structure and services, or as Sleeperblues speculated, they might be buying it for the lot and views and not care what kind of shape the structure is in and be willing to forego a structural inspection. Even if I were doing that, I'd for sure want the geologist's report. When there is no negotiation, you (and, most likely, your bank) can ask for inspections in your offer, but if the sellers say "as is" they won't accept a contingency based on inspection results, which means if the geologist thinks the yard will subside and fall into the neighbor's swimming pool down the hill during the next El Niño, your choice is to walk away and lose your deposit (as opposed to getting it back if the sale were contingent on the inspections).