Royal ancestry of RICHARD LYMAN ???

[Gordon Fisher]

The Mary and John Clearing House, conducted by Burton W Spear, published in
1996 vol 25 in a series called "Search for the Passengers of the Mary & John
1630".
On p 88-93 there are a number of proposed royal lineages stemming from
direct ancestors of Richard LYMAN, JR (1617-1662; he came on the "Lion",
though) of Northampton MA, m Hepzibah FORD.

The material shows considerable naivete. I would be very grateful for any
comments on (1) the lines indicated, and in particular whether or not there
has been total disproof of royal ancestors for Richard LYMAN; and (2) the
sources indicated, many of which I've never heard of (and some of which are
clearly beneath comment).

Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net

First, there's a line to Soberton LEMAN "lived in the reign of King William
the Conqueror". The only source given for this line is *Hall Ancestry* by
Charles S Hall, 1896.

There is another line from Elizabeth LAMBERT (m Thomas LYMAN) to Sir
Radulphus "Grandson of Lambert . Count of Loraine and Mons, France", "came
to England with his kinsman, William the Conqueror." The sources given are:
1. *Matthews Complete American Armoury and Blue Book, by John Matthews
(n.d.); 2. *Colonial Families of the United States*, by George Norbury
MacKenzie (n.d.); 3. *History of Ancient Woodbury, CT*, by William Cothren;
*The Middle Ages*, by Edward Maslin Hulme, 1929; *Genealogy of the Lymans in
Great Britain in America*, by Lyman Coleman, 1872.

And then there's one from Joanne de UMFRAVILLE (m Sir William LAMBERT,
father of Adam LAMBERT in the previous line) to Sir Robert de Umfraville who
(wouldn't you know) "came to England with his kinsman, William the
Conqueror." The sources given here are: 1. *The Dictionary of National
Biography* 2. MacKenzie (v.s.)

Also a line from MATILDA, Countess of ANGUS who m (2) Gilbert de UMFRAVILLE.
(Matilda is not stated to have come with William the Conqueror). Sources
here are: 1. Hall (v.s.); 2. Kings, Rulers and Statesmen, ed L F Wise & E W
Egan (n.d.); 3. *New Catholic Encyclopedia* (n.d.); 4. Butler's *Lives of
the Saints*, ed. H Thurston & Clarence Barnhart (n.d.); 5. *The Oxford
Dictionary of the Saints*, by David Hugh Farmer, 1978; 6. *New Century
Encyclopedia*, ed. William Halsey (n.d.); 7. *Colonial & Revolutionary
Lineages of America*, American Historical Co., NY, 1939; 8. the DNB again.

And, last but clearly not least, a line from Lady Agenes CUMYN (m Gilbert de
UMFRAVILLE) to "Wodin or Odin (Roman Othinus), King of North Europe about
225 A.D.", "He married Frea or Frigga", by way of ALFRED THE GREAT and the
usual Anglo-Saxon suspects. Sources: 1. MacKenzie again; 2. Hall again;
3. *A Short History of the English People*, by John Richard Green, 1891. 4.
Wise & Egan again; 5. *The New Century Encyclopedia of Names*, ed. C L
Barnhart; 6. the DNB again; 7. the *New Catholic Encyclopedia* again.

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Gordon Fisher wrote:
>
> The Mary and John Clearing House, conducted by Burton W Spear, published in
> 1996 vol 25 in a series called "Search for the Passengers of the Mary & John
> 1630".
> On p 88-93 there are a number of proposed royal lineages stemming from
> direct ancestors of Richard LYMAN, JR (1617-1662; he came on the "Lion",
> though) of Northampton MA, m Hepzibah FORD.
>
> The material shows considerable naivete. I would be very grateful for any
> comments on (1) the lines indicated, and in particular whether or not there
> has been total disproof of royal ancestors for Richard LYMAN; and (2) the
> sources indicated, many of which I've never heard of (and some of which are
> clearly beneath comment).
>

There was an article in TAG in the 1960s or 1970s (David ?) which
addressed the ancestry of Richard Lyman, and showed that the line could
only be traced to the father of the immigrant (with speculation
regarding the name of his father). Basically, the whole royal
connection, Lambert marriage and all, is invented.

taf

[shala...@aol.com]

>taf

Taf, could you find the citation for that article? I came across the
Richard Lyman supposed Royal descent years ago in the Coleman Lyman book,
and instantly saw the problems with the older parts of the lines, but was
unsure of the connection of Richard Lyman to Elizabeth Lambert.

Alot of the Umfreville connections to others have been written up in
Ancestral Roots and Magna Charta Sureties. But none of these works have
listed one thing about Richard Lyman being connected to them.

Elizabeth Ernst

[Tom Camfield]

In article <19961203125...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
shala...@aol.com wrote:

> A lot of the Umfreville connections to others have been written up in

> Ancestral Roots and Magna Charta Sureties. But none of these works have
> listed one thing about Richard Lyman being connected to them.

Just a quick note to observe that the texts I have found relating to
both LYMAN and UMFREVILLE are held in pretty low esteem...and for pretty
good reason, it becomes obvious.

However, if anyone should run into just where the LYMAN surname became
associated with the WARNER line, I'd be tickled pink. Specifically, I have
a Lyman Camfield, b. 1806 in Vermont, of parents (according to later census
statements) born in Massachusetts.

Thank you for your support.

--
Tom Camfield - camf...@olympus.net

[Todd A. Farmerie]

shala...@aol.com wrote:
>

> >There was an article in TAG in the 1960s or 1970s (David ?) which
> >addressed the ancestry of Richard Lyman, and showed that the line could
> >only be traced to the father of the immigrant (with speculation
> >regarding the name of his father). Basically, the whole royal
> >connection, Lambert marriage and all, is invented.
>

> Taf, could you find the citation for that article?

Thanks to David Greene, it would appear that the article in question was
in TAG: 30:187-90.

taf

[odan3...@gmail.com]

Though This post/thread is many years old, Id like to add for the benefit of those who may be researching presently. The TAG: 30 was written in the 1950's posing a particular set of arguments and did not definitively prove or disprove the lineage. It simply produced an argument to which a researcher can analyze and come to their own conclusions based on evidence they consider. Holding in 'high' or 'low' esteem is a much more responsible description than stating something is proven or not without concrete evidence that leaves no doubt one way or the other.

Its important not to discount any information while amidst researching as all information came from somewhere. Simply finding errors doesn't necessarily speak to the cause of those errors and lack of information doesn't mean information doesn't exist. Past information that is discounted completely or superficially could end up lost forever due to human analytical error. At this point, regardless of opinions on genealogical publications in consideration that may contain errors or lack source citations, This lineage is still open to analysis.


*The statement that the royal lineage was intentionally 'invented' is a patently false statement. Validity should always be challenged in any research, but no evidence whatsoever has been produced that shows precise intentional deception or fabrication in regard to the lineage.

[taf]

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 11:28:11 PM UTC-7, odan3...@gmail.com wrote:

> Its important not to discount any information while amidst researching as
> all information came from somewhere.

Unfortunately, with regard to the many colonial royal descents of the 19th and early 20th century, the somewhere the information came from was a place called Wonderland, or perhaps Neverland. Some of them were indeed fraudulently invented, some arose through a combination of incompetence and over-enthusiasm. Where they did not come from is an uninterrupted chain of reliable sources.

> Simply finding errors doesn't necessarily speak to the cause of those errors
> and lack of information doesn't mean information doesn't exist.

A royal descent not supported by evidence is not a royal descent. Evidence that is not known to exist isn't really evidence (or if you would prefer, it is both evidence and not evidence, like Schrödinger's cat).

> Past information that is discounted completely or superficially could end
> up lost forever due to human analytical error.

Have you looked at all of the trees on ancestry.com and geni.com and myheritage.com and familysearch.com . . . lately? There really is little risk that a few nonsense lines will be lost - the bigger risk is that due prudence based on evaluation of sources will lose out to the uncritical copying of database dross.

> At this point, regardless of opinions on genealogical publications in
> consideration that may contain errors or lack source citations, This
> lineage is still open to analysis.

All lineages are open too analysis. That is the nature of scholarship. However, time and effort are finite. If extraordinary claims lack the slightest basis in the primary record, I have no interest in pursuing Cibola over it.

> *The statement that the royal lineage was intentionally 'invented' is a
> patently false statement.

And so is that statement, unless you have evidence it wasn't invented. This is all so pointless.

> Validity should always be challenged in any research, but no evidence
> whatsoever has been produced that shows precise intentional deception
> or fabrication in regard to the lineage.

Were they insidious or just incompetent? Does it really matter?

Then there is the question of burden of proof (ok, just for you, burden of high esteem), which falls squarely on the person claiming a descent to be valid.

No evidence = no line.

taf

[odan3...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 12:53:26 AM UTC-10, taf wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 11:28:11 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > Its important not to discount any information while amidst researching as
> > all information came from somewhere.
>
> Unfortunately, with regard to the many colonial royal descents of the 19th and early 20th century, the somewhere the information came from was a place called Wonderland, or perhaps Neverland. Some of them were indeed fraudulently invented, some arose through a combination of incompetence and over-enthusiasm. Where they did not come from is an uninterrupted chain of reliable sources.

No doubt many were inaccurate or even fraudulent. My statement was not to say intentional deception didn't occur in many lineage listings (especially at that time), even perhaps this line...my point was without direct evidence as to why exactly an error exists or that intentional deception took place, saying it was'invented' as an absolute statement is not accurate and it would be more intellectually sound to simply state the error with reasoned possibilities as to why with a clear separation between the evidence and the opinion. My statement was not intended as a personal stance as to the absolute accuracy of this lineage one way or the other, but a point to a potential researcher.

>
> > Simply finding errors doesn't necessarily speak to the cause of those errors
> > and lack of information doesn't mean information doesn't exist.
>
> A royal descent not supported by evidence is not a royal descent. Evidence that is not known to exist isn't really evidence (or if you would prefer, it is both evidence and not evidence, like Schrödinger's cat).

Agreed, its a 'claim' when presented without evidence. my point was for a person interested in researching with the goal of evidence based conclusions. The claim of descent was issued by someone somewhere...some are looking to prove it, some to disprove it, some dont care and perhaps have other intellectual interests in the subject matter like sorting placement of the mixing and matching of styles of royal names as they were presented throughout various records. My point was if one was searching for evidence, one should be looking for evidence.

>
> > Past information that is discounted completely or superficially could end
> > up lost forever due to human analytical error.
>
> Have you looked at all of the trees on ancestry.com and geni.com and myheritage.com and familysearch.com . . . lately? There really is little risk that a few nonsense lines will be lost - the bigger risk is that due prudence based on evaluation of sources will lose out to the uncritical copying of database dross.

LOL Fair play on that hot mess, but past publication information can often times contain lineage facts or historical records of information that in other places has been lost or destroyed (youd be surprised how many records and items were lost in our American Civil War alone). Though a publication is never a formal substitute for an actual record...a researcher may find the contents useful, helpful or leading to concrete evidence.

>
> > Validity should always be challenged in any research, but no evidence
> > whatsoever has been produced that shows precise intentional deception
> > or fabrication in regard to the lineage.
>
> Were they insidious or just incompetent? Does it really matter?

Someone siting a poorly written record or innocently making mistakes in research is not the same as someone inventing a record for deceptive gain. To some it may matter. You've stated to you it doesn't so I dont have anything to add on that note.

>
> Then there is the question of burden of proof (ok, just for you, burden of high esteem), which falls squarely on the person claiming a descent to be valid.
>
> No evidence = no line.

You've made up your mind based given what you have considered, I respect your right to that opinion. As for myself, as the claim was indeed made...Until indisputable evidence or concrete deception is uncovered, my opinion will remain in the "Unknown" category that can only look on this line with further debate and research. To each his own...

Although at this point in history, DNA could still sort out some of this, and genetic validity could soon surpass all of this. Still fun nonetheless!

[P J Evans]

Someone making up an ancestry is LYING about it. It's not whether it's fun, or makes people feel good. If you want to be a genealogist, don't lie to people about their ancestor. (Mistakes happen and should be corrected. Lies are intentional and should be AVOIDED.)

Nice to know what YOU are. (taf, though, is a genealogist.)

[taf]

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 4:22:20 PM UTC-7, odan3...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Were they insidious or just incompetent? Does it really matter?
>
> Someone siting a poorly written record or innocently making mistakes in
> research is not the same as someone inventing a record for deceptive gain.
> To some it may matter. You've stated to you it doesn't so I dont have
> anything to add on that note.

Here is the thing - you are reading into the word 'invented' a different interpretation than I was putting into it when I wrote it. Bear with me here:

I have worked on a family with an analogous 'royal descent' published for them about 1900. The author was tracing the ancestry of an immigrant, and he found from wills that his father was Peter and his grandfather Nicholas, but that is as far as he could go. What did he do next? what a lot of genealogists of that era did - he looked for anyone he could find with the surname and connected the dots. In that era, the most accessible works were the county histories and published visitations, and it was to the latter he turned. In one he found the daughter of a prominent regional family marrying a Peter with the same surname. Since that was the name of the immigrant's father, he concluded he had found the father of Nicholas. He never had any basis for this beyond the shared surname, a none-too-uncommon given name, and a desire to extend his line. He never tried to find any additional information on the elder Peter (like his will, right where you would expect it to be, which leaves everything to his widow and nephews, no children being named, or the grave marker of his wife that shows she was the same age as Nicholas, not old enough to be his mother. He had 'found' a connection to a noteworthy family, so he was satisfied.

Now he needed a father for Peter, so he went to another visitation pedigree where there was a James, son of a holder of a manor - a right proper ancestor to add to the tree. The immigrant had a son James, obviously (?) named for this earlier James, so the compiler made the visitation James the father of the elder Peter and hence the great-great-grandfather of the immigrant. Again, he failed to look at the relevant records - the visitation says he is of a particular village, and the records of that parish show him marrying a woman with the name given in the pedigree, but at a date about the same time as that of his supposed grandson. He instead proceeded to confuse this James with his uncle of the same name, and confuse their father/brother with that man's like-named grandfather, and before he was done he had somehow managed to pound his chronological square peg into the round hole of the historical record by shifted the manorial family chronology back two generations so it all fit together. He then concluded that because the chronology he had modified to fit his suggested line now fit his suggested line, he had thereby proven that his chain of relationships.

He had thus created a line running from the gentry family through James, Peter, Nicholas, and Peter to the immigrant. He was not committing fraud or intentional deception (though he was obviously deceiving himself and if the 4000 pedigrees on Ancestry that copy his line are any indication, many more were also deceived unintentionally). He was just an abysmal genealogist who INVENTED that line through his sloppy and naive work. I was using the word in a manner that that need not imply intent.

And from a genealogist's perspective, a wrong line is a wrong line. Sometimes it is worth parsing how it came to be wrong as an exercise in what not to do, but for many of them like the Lyman one, the process of compilation is lost in the mists of time, and it is enough to know that the records don't support it and move on to a more productive line of inquiry.

taf

[odan3...@gmail.com]

> He had thus created a line running from the gentry family through James, Peter, Nicholas, and Peter to the immigrant. He was not committing fraud or intentional deception (though he was obviously deceiving himself and if the 4000 pedigrees on Ancestry that copy his line are any indication, many more were also deceived unintentionally). He was just an abysmal genealogist who INVENTED that line through his sloppy and naive work. I was using the word in a manner that that need not imply intent.

Understood. The interpretation of the word invented is where we had the disconnect. Well put here, I stand corrected on the way I perceived the point. (just to be clear, I'm not challenging points out of disrespect at all. Just engaging & I do really appreciate you taking the time to offer your input which I find productive.)

>
> And from a genealogist's perspective, a wrong line is a wrong line. Sometimes it is worth parsing how it came to be wrong as an exercise in what not to do, but for many of them like the Lyman one, the process of compilation is lost in the mists of time, and it is enough to know that the records don't support it and move on to a more productive line of inquiry.
>

Indeed. In regard to a definitive proof as one could state record wise, we don't disgaree. If errors cannot be explained or sources cannot be picked apart it is impossible to make a declaration of absolute truth to a claim thus cannot be stated as fact. As much as I am putting forth debate about research to disprove, due to the questions and information available I couldn't sit here and say it is a true lineage either. So on that we agree. But the flipside is without the process compilation or a counter as what the truth actually is...I'd still stand to question.

My basis for it is unlike the position of a genealogist whose job it is to reach a conclusion that is purely record based (in this respect id agree with you 100% as you'd either find records or you do not) but as a descendant the position is a bit different as the conclusion goes beyond a record and reaches into who someone is/how they came to be that records may not be there to represent. So when a conclusion isn't a slam dunk one way or the other record wise, a descendant is left to still wonder.

My reason for this position isn't this line in particular but a personal story I can offer and perhaps as a genealogist you may find it interesting in regard to a descendant perspective... I had a particular relative who after the civil war assumed a new identity and went west. This left his entire life prior to the war a blank. A variety of relatives did what you stated above and compiled versions of lineages by simply connecting superficial items like names, places or dates none of which were true in the end. As more of an analytical thinker, I couldnt accept any of their theories as facts. They just didn't have enough concrete information, records or otherwise (for reasons & errors much like the ones you stated in your above story).

So I proceeded to poke over every possible written record we had on this ancestor and his family members, logging family stories that could be points of interest, getting all his govt. records etc. seeking any clue. When nothing from that concretely turned up...one night just poking around I noticed a fathers birthplace listed on one of his sons death certificates that indicated a birthplace that matched no other life records. this birthplace even contradicted the one on his tombstone.

I took my list of personal references and started comparing to possibilities in that birthplace against people in his general age range at that location. Through a long list of items and process of elimination, eventually I had a potential theory of who he may have been. My theory was complicated and NOBODY in the family believed it because of the records we did have.

That led me to take this further and research his father listed in the census with hopes of getting more information that could perhaps be more concrete. This ancestor though born in the north, his dad hailed from the south stated in the census they appeared on together before the war. ...so in attempts to further prove my theory I reached out to attain records in the southern state and they had none due to them all being destroyed during the civil war. The only thing that resembled the person I was looking for was in a county in the state that had a single photocopy of a page in a family bible held by the local historical society that listed his name and year of birth. Nobody knew where the actual bible was at this point or if this man was indeed the same man I was looking for. It was simply the only one in the state that matched the name and year of birth.

So now my official theory record wise consisted of one guy from a place randomly listed on a death cert. that I had formulated a theory around based on non official records and his dad whose existence in the south listed on the census was considered via a copy of a handwritten item that couldnt be verified. Not much to go on. Certainly not seeming too legit record wise.

Other family members in this family were well documented with a descendancy but my particular set of potential ancestors were basically lost to time and bad luck record wise. Especially since the one went north, none of the southerners could verify. They could be confirmed in the North as having existed but neither could be officially connected in records to the South or to his new identity obviously. All my theory points were made from non official information.

As this was before genetic testing, All I had was the theory based on almost everything but official records....I had no choice but to think of it as a theory. Which I did for many years.

Eventually DNA testing was done and it wasn't until about the sixth relative was tested and confirmed properly related to the Southern family in the theory that many were willing to give up their previous lineage beliefs. But my strange and involved theory proved to be the correct one in the end. At least that the family is the correct one.

I totally appreciate and see your position, especially as a professional genealogist. But after having personally been in a position where certain claimed records that existed would seem more correct than what was actually physically true, I can only encourage people to always keep looking until definite destinations are reached if they are a descendant.

In any case, I really do appreciate you taking the time taf...we may be viewing this from two slightly different ends of the room but I understand your position and am grateful for the conversation. Cheers. :)