Harry and Meghan are cousins! Remarkable family tree dating back to 1480 reveals royal is related to his girlfriend

[Olivier]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027891/Harry-Meghan-cousins-family-tree-1480-reveals.html

True or false ?

[Paulo Canedo]

Dear Oliver, the weak link must be between John Hussey of Dorcking and the immigrant Christopher Hussey. Christopher Hussey's father is known to be John Hussey, John's father and Christopher's grandfather was once thought to be George Hussey but the theory has been disproved. I know of no theory that John's father was John Hussey of Dorcking.

[Paulo Canedo]

After searching more I don't find any Bridget Bowes granddaughter of Ralph Bowes married to a John Hussey of Dorcking. However Ralph Bowes did have a grandniece named Bridget wife of Thomas Hussey and mother of the George Hussey formerly believed to be Christopher's grandfather. Christopher's father John Hussey was of Dorcking, Surrey but I know of no previous John Hussey of Dorcking.
This all seems like a badly done attempt to reform the formerly accepted ancestry of the immigrant Christopher Hussey.

[Paulo Canedo]

Two important links:
https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-George-Bowes-of-Streatham-Daldon/6000000006444668343 (he was the son of Ralph he had no such daughter as Bridget)
http://www.geni.com/people/Bridget-Hussey/6000000007604991631 (The true Bridget who in the Daily Mail article was the target of serious errors.)

[P J Evans]

On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 3:24:33 AM UTC-7, Olivier wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027891/Harry-Meghan-cousins-family-tree-1480-reveals.html
>
> True or false ?

When you start 500 years back, it's much easier to find kinships, but they're going to be so distant as to be practically non-existent.
(My brother's daughter-in-law is something like a 10th cousin to both my brother and his wife. The connections are 17th century.)

[D. Spencer Hines]

That simply shows Bridget as the granddaughter of Ralph and daughter of Richard, who is shown as the
son of Ralph. Then Bridget as the wife of Thomas Hussey and mother of George Hussey -- and so
forth.

DSH

[Paulo Canedo]

Dear Spencer, the true Bridget's grandfather Ralph was not the Ralph mentioned in the article they were actually father and son so Bridget was actually the niece of the Ralph mentioned in the article please look at the dates. Also Bridget was proved not to be Christopher Hussey's ancestor the identificaton of Christipher's father John with John son of George was disproved decades ago.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Dear Paulo, your second URL shows Bridget as the granddaughter of Sir Ralph Bowes [1468-ca. 1512]
and Margery Conyers Bowes.

Also, the Meghan Markle-Nixon connection does not hinge on Bridget Bowes at all.

[Paulo Canedo]

Dear Spencer the Ralph the Daily Mail article mentioned was the one who died in 1516 he was the son of the one who died in 1512. Also I did not say anything about the Nixon connection.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Dear Paulo, right, your online sources show Bridget as the daughter of Richard Bowes [1488-1558],
who was allegedly a son of Ralph [1468-1512] -- therefore she would allegedly be a granddaughter of
Ralph and Margery.

I'm not defending The Daily Mail on any alleged connections -- far from it.

Now we hear Meghan is related to:

All These Too:

Nahum J. Bachelder
Leon Leonwood Bean
Lady Randolph Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Tricia Nixon Cox
William John Cox
James Dean
Henry Dearborn
Jennie Elizabeth Eisenhower
Julie Nixon Eisenhower
Herbert Henry Dow
Thomas Stearns Eliot
Henry Clay Folger
Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford
Gerald Ford
Melville Bell Grosvenor
Louis L'Amour
Daniel Leavitt
Herman Webster Mudgett
Hannah Milhous Nixon
Richard Nixon
Aroline Sanborn Bartlett
Franklin Benjamin Sanborn
General John B. Sanborn
Daniel Webster
John Greenleaf Whittier

[D. Spencer Hines]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 03:41:30 -0700 (PDT), Paulo Canedo <paulorica...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Dear Oliver, the weak link must be between John Hussey of Dorcking and the immigrant Christopher Hussey. Christopher Hussey's father is known to be John Hussey, John's father and Christopher's grandfather was once thought to be George Hussey but the theory has been disproved. I know of no theory that John's father was John Hussey of Dorcking.

Dear Paulo,

Do you have a good solid source with detailed evidence for proof that George was not either the son
of Bridget [Bowes] Hussey or the father of John Hussey of Dorcking [alleged father of Christopher
Hussey]? I'd like to read the tea leaves and bathe in details of the alleged erroneous connections.

There is a plethora of very speculative, but useful, stuff on the web.

http://www.boydhouse.com/michelle/hussey/johnmaryhussey.html

http://www.boydhouse.com/michelle/hussey/christopherhussey.html

[Paulo Canedo]

Dear Spencer, see http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/1999-05/0926227711.
In short George was indeed Bridget's son I never denied that. George was indeed father of a John but he was not the same as John Hussey of Dorcking known to be Christopher's father.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Here's one of the key documents, by Paul C. Reed:

>From: Reedpcgen<reed...@aol.com >
>Subject: Re: Hussey Line To Royalty
>Date: 9 May 1999 05:28:31 GMT
>
>
>I did some research in original records, and must conclude that the purported
>connection to royalty on this Hussey line is false. Let's group things in two
>areas, first, records of the families of Christopher Hussey and his father John
>in Dorking, Surrey, and second the Hussey family of Honington and Caythorpe,
>Lincolnshire.
>
>I first checked information given in Ancestral File and the International
>Genealogical Index. It includes some fictitious material that may be in part
>fraudulent.
>
>Christopher Hussey is given as being born at Dorking on 11 Feb. 1594, or 18
>Feb. 1599. But there is no record of births. Though some parish registers
>also record birth dates as well as baptismal dates, that of Dorking records
>only the day of baptism. Christopher is presented as being son of John Hussey,
>born at Dorking 29 Apr. 1559, died there 5 Feb. 1638. These dates are false.
>There is no christening or burial in those years for any John Hussey (I did ont
>search all of the burials, or check the date 24 July 1632, which was not given
>in AF or IGI, but mentioned on this group). This John is given as being son of
>Hugh Hussey who died at Dorking 5 Apr. 1612, son of an earlier Hugh Hussey,
>given as dying in 1537. This too is false. There is no burial for a Hugh
>Hussey in the period around 1612, and the register did not start until 1538.
>
>I searched the baptismal register of Dorking from 1550 through 1610, though
>there is a gap 1572-1578. I found that John Hussey did indeed marry Mary Wood
>at Dorking on 5 Dec. 1593. A son John was baptized 29 Apr. 1596, and was
>buried 8 Nov. 1597. Christopher was baptized 18 Feb. 1598/9. A daughter named
>Marie was baptized 31 Mar. 1602. I found no other Hussey baptisms recorded
>before 1610.
>
>A search of probate records for Surrey is simplified by a new index produced by
>the Index Library (The British Record Society, London), vol. 99, which is a
>comprehensive index of all surviving probate records for all courts in Surrey
>[including the PCC] before 1650 (ed. Cliff Webb). It lists only a handful of
>Hussey entries [spelled Hosey, Husey, Hussie, and Hussey]:
>Nicholas, of Kingston, 1488
>John, of Kingston, 1503
>Cicely, widow, of Kingtson, 1511
>John, of Richmond, 1597
>Henry, gent., of Battersea, 1611
>(Dame) Patience of Surrey [PCC 1643]
>
>Kingston, Richmond and Battersea are all situated on the south side of the
>River Thames, west of London. Dorking, on the other hand, is a large parish in
>the south central part of the county, with no apparent connection.
>
>We therefore have no evidence of any ancestry earlier than the marriage of John
>Hussey at Dorking in 1593. I should also note that the Dorking register did
>not record the name of parents in baptisms (with a few exceptions) before
>1578/9, so even of a baptism for John had been found, it would not have given
>the name of his father. If the family of John had been in any way prominent,
>we would have expected him to leave some type of probate record.
>
>Turning to the Lincolnshire family, I checked the will of John Hussey,
>gentleman, who is given in the visitation pedigree as having had a brother
>named George who had a son named John. John Hussey, who had served as a Member
>of Parliament, left a very long and detailed will, dated 14 August 1583. He
>died without issue. Nearly half of the first page of his will was devoted to
>bequests to the poor. He mentioned his stepson, various servants, his sister
>Agnes Townsende, each of her children, her husband Thomas Townsend, gave a colt
>to a cleric, many cousins, including Augustine Massenberte, Edmond Thorolde,
>many godchildren, gave small legacies to NUMEROUS individuals, cousin Stephen
>Thumilbie, etc., including long and detailed entails of his lands among various
>relatives with remainders in case of failure of issue.
>
>The wording of the will makes it clear that if John had had a brother with
>surviving issue that he certainly would have been mentioned, even if given a
>small legacy to keep him from disputing the terms of the will. I must conclude
>from this that John's brother George and his nephew and namesake John
>predeceased him without surviving issue.
>
>pcr

DSH

[reed.mi...@edumail.vic.gov.au]

On Sunday, 29 October 2017 21:24:33 UTC+11, Olivier wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027891/Harry-Meghan-cousins-family-tree-1480-reveals.html
>
> True or false ?

We are aware that Christopher Hussey was born in Dorking - as was his mate John Smith around the same time. The two men sailed to New Hampshire/Nantucket together and Smith's son marries Hussey's daughter. Hussey's grt grt grt grandmother Bridget had familial ties to the famous York Aske family who HATED the Established Church. Captain Hussey grt grt grt grandfather - the staunch Catholic Lord Hussey - was from Sleaford, not far from Yorkshire.

Clearly, Captain Hussey's father's family had more or less been forced to leave their Northern England "world" and go to Dorking. The Stydolf family lived quite nearby. It was all much safer. What's more, New England looked even safer and provided a "new beginning"!

[reed.mi...@edumail.vic.gov.au]

On Sunday, 29 October 2017 21:24:33 UTC+11, Olivier wrote:

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027891/Harry-Meghan-cousins-family-tree-1480-reveals.html
>
> True or false ?

True till proven otherwise!

The Stydolfs married into the Husseys and vice versa.

The Stydolfs were close geographically to Dorking and we know that they were VERY anti establishment - as were the Husseys. John Hussey of Dorking's mother was a Stydolf.

[Ted]

The Daily Mail's "Ralph Bowes as grandfather of Bridget Bowes and Sir George Bowes (siblings)" link is correct.

The Stydolf' family - Guy Hussey married an Elizabeth Stydolf of Norbury - near Dorking - provided very good reasons for this line to be passed.

[Paulo Canedo]

Dear Ted, it appears to me that The Daily Mail article confused the two Ralphs Bowes the father and the son, that the senior Ralph was Bridget's granfather through his son Richard and that the younger Ralph was Bridget's uncle not grandfather. Correct? Finally please see http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/1999-05/0926227711 Bridget was the mother of George Hussey but George was not John of Dorcking's father and Capt. Christopher's grandfather.

[nore...@san.rr.com]

---- reed.mi...@edumail.vic.gov.au wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 October 2017 21:24:33 UTC+11, Olivier wrote:
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027891/Harry-Meghan-cousins-family-tree-1480-reveals.html
> >
> > True or false ?
>
> True till proven otherwise!
>

no. it should be neutral until there is strong evidence in either direction

[D. Spencer Hines]

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 07:10:04 -0700 (PDT), Paulo Canedo
<paulorica...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Let's take care of this mess. The Daily Mail article confused the two Ralphs Bowes the father and the son. The senior Ralph was Bridget's granfather through his son Richard. The younger Ralph was Bridget's uncle not grandfather. Bridget was the mother of George Hussey but George was not John of Dorcking's father and Capt. Christopher's grandfather.

Then we have this to ponder:

>From: Reedpcgen<reed...@aol.com >
>Subject: Re: Hussey Line To Royalty
>Date: 9 May 1999 05:28:31 GMT
>
>
>I did some research in original records, and must conclude that the purported
>connection to royalty on this Hussey line is false. Let's group things in two
>areas, first, records of the families of Christopher Hussey and his father John
>in Dorking, Surrey, and second the Hussey family of Honington and Caythorpe,
>Lincolnshire.
>
>I first checked information given in Ancestral File and the International
>Genealogical Index. It includes some fictitious material that may be in part
>fraudulent.
>
>Christopher Hussey is given as being born at Dorking on 11 Feb. 1594, or 18
>Feb. 1599. But there is no record of births. Though some parish registers
>also record birth dates as well as baptismal dates, that of Dorking records
>only the day of baptism. Christopher is presented as being son of John Hussey,
>born at Dorking 29 Apr. 1559, died there 5 Feb. 1638. These dates are false.

>There is no christening or burial in those years for any John Hussey (I did not

>1578/9, so even if a baptism for John had been found, it would not have given

[reed.mi...@edumail.vic.gov.au]

On Monday, 30 October 2017 04:50:41 UTC+11, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> No, that Hussey and Bowes connection is not correct for Christopher.
>
> However, Christopher's wife was a daughter of Rev. Stephen Bachiler, of whom Robert Charles Anderson states ..., "Among many remarkable lives lived by early New Englanders, Bachiler’s is the most remarkable."
>
> http://www.boydhouse.com/michelle/hussey/stephenbachiler.html
>
> Nixon, Ford, and Churchill were all descendants:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Bachiler

:: True - Art Historians note the circa 1650-1700 New Hampshire wooden chair on display at the MET which presents elements of the Hussey coat-of-arms in its carvings. Captain Christopher Hussey was the son-in-law of Puritan Rev. Stephen Bachiler - whose symbols from his own coat-of-arms are also on the chair and are "interspersed" with the Hussey crest.

[jmb...@albion.edu]

If her line is true, Meghan would have another probable royal descent as well, through Edward Ward’s wife Judith: see Matt Hovious’ “The Ancestry of Edward Warde of Little Wratting, Suffolk, and the Putative Lukyn Origin of His Wife, Judith" (TG Vol. 28, #2, Fall 2014). Discussed in this newsgroup a few years ago.

[Paulo Canedo]

Em quarta-feira, 29 de novembro de 2017 17:37:22 UTC, ravinma...@yahoo.com escreveu:
> Deacon Jabez True seems to have been a descendant of Wymond Bradbury, if you accept the royal line for the Bradburys.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/Lri1TWl8y0s/7pCAQJBS85kJ;context-place=msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/Ewu6bUVaVDk/HKBk5W6xmI4J apparently proves the Louis IV royal descent for Thomas Bradbury through his paternal grandmother. There is also a likely and way more recent royal descent for Thomas Bradbury through his maternal grandfather William Whitgift who was the son of Anne Dynewell likely daughter of Katherine Fulnetby daughter of Jane Dymoke daughter of Thomas Dymoke and Margaret de Welles.

[Paulo Canedo]

I should have added that the second line was proposed by the late Marshall Kirk in "A Probable Royal Descent for Thomas Bradbury of Salisbury, Massachusetts," New England Historical and Genealogical Register 161, 2007, 27-36. The most recent king in this line would be Edward I.

[Olivier]

Following the site: http://famouskin.com/family-group.php?name=80923+meghan+markle&ahnum=88

Some published sources give David Merrill's parents as Jacob Merrill and Elisabeth Wyatt and his birth date as 12 NOV 1768 in Plymouth, Grafton, New Hampshire.

However, no birth or baptism records for him have been found. Also, the will of Jacob Merrill, dated 11 MAR 1811, states he has 12 children and then lists their names of six boys and six girls. A thirteenth child who died at the age of 11 is not mentioned. David Merrill was alive at the time of Jacob's will and should have been named in the will, but he was not.

Until his parentage can be properly documented, his parentage should still be considered unknown although he is likely to be related to Jacob Merrill based on geography alone

[Patricia Junkin]

I am always taken aback a bit at how quickly the ancient lines of celebrities are uncovered when some of us struggle for years with primary documents with no results.

Sent from my iPhone

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Olivier]

Le dimanche 29 octobre 2017 11:24:33 UTC+1, Olivier a écrit :
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027891/Harry-Meghan-cousins-family-tree-1480-reveals.html
>
> True or false ?

Another link to Churchill and Shakespeare http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5129431/Meghan-Markle-English-roots-genealogists-claim.html

[john.micha...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 4:48:11 PM UTC-4, D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Has Paul C. Reed published his findings that the descent is unlikely somewhere? I've been trying to edit the Wikipedia page to not give undue certainty to the proposed descent.

This doesn't work, because other editors revert research done by a professional genealogist with a quarter century of experience because Usenet is 'self-published', preferring tabloid journalists that quote less careful sources. I've even seen made up lines from Geni cited, as long as the make the Daily Mail...

Thanks,
JM Ruby

[Olivier]

Le dimanche 29 octobre 2017 11:24:33 UTC+1, Olivier a écrit :
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027891/Harry-Meghan-cousins-family-tree-1480-reveals.html
>
> True or false ?

Researchers at New England Historic Genealogical Society have announced that Meghan Markle is descended from King Edward III

Markle is a cousin of her future husband, Prince Harry,
more than 240 times over

https://www.americanancestors.org/meghan-markle

[wjhonson]

As is typical with this person, no research is actually published for peer review. It's mere *statements* that this line has evidence.

Worthless.

[Sholom Simon]

ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:

>Right, good point.
>
>I noticed that there might also be a descent from the Rev. William
>Skipper of New England (himself a descendant of Edward III) via
>Skipper, Lunt, Drake, Smith, Merrill, etc.

Well done! That's what NEHGS said yesterday (the day after you wrote
the above).

From their press release:

>This newly discovered lineage for Ms. Markle comes through an early
>immigrant to Boston, Massachusetts, the royally-descended Rev.
>William Skipper, who arrived in New England in 1639, an ancestor of
>the future royal's father, Thomas Wayne Markle.

and

>Roberts states that Markle is also descended from American immigrant
>Christopher Hussey, of Nantucket, as has been correctly reported in
>the press, but he is skeptical of any noble ancestry through that
>line. "What is clear now," Roberts says, "is that she has a
>well-documented lineage from medieval kings through the Skipper
>family of Boston and that Prince Harry is her 17th cousin."

see https://www.americanancestors.org/meghan-markle

-- Sholom

[wjhonson]

But for constantly failing to *show their work* they get an F

[John Higgins]

The pot calling the kettle black....

[Paulo Canedo]

Here are you again disturbing the peace in the newsgrup. I'm under the impression that you have a douple personality one in which you are really useful to the newsgroup and its members by helping threads and other one in which you are just criticizing others without any good reason. Do you have any reason to suspect Mr. Roberts is lying or are you just continuing with your sport of criticizing others senselessly?

[hoove...@yahoo.com]

Give it a rest, Johnson. This is an "announcement" not an article and not a book. As the announcement correctly states, Roberts is a world renowned genealogist. To put it as kindly as possible, you're not. Any eventual book and/or article will include countless citations.

[wjhonson]

I couldn't care less if G B R is world renowned or the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Until the work is shown and peer reviewed, the "announcements" are useless garbage

[Paulo Canedo]

Em quinta-feira, 30 de novembro de 2017 18:32:07 UTC, wjhonson escreveu:
> I couldn't care less if G B R is world renowned or the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
>
> Until the work is shown and peer reviewed, the "announcements" are useless garbage

Will, if I had the power as a web master or something I would suspend you from the newsgroup during some months to see if you'd learn after the suspension ended you would come back and if you were still doing things the way you used to then I would permanently bann you from the newsgroups.

[wjhonson]

And I would suspend you for wasting our time posting all sorts of nonsense because some *source* said it once.

So get over yourself. You are not the God of the internet.

[Jan Wolfe]

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 1:59:58 PM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> NEHGS has separately posted Gary Roberts's own statement:
>
> https://www.americanancestors.org/Royal-Ancestry-of-Meghan-Markle.aspx

For a chart and some sources, see https://vita-brevis.org/2017/11/wentworth-connection/#more-9799.

[Peter Stewart]

On 01-Dec-17 5:59 AM, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> NEHGS has separately posted Gary Roberts's own statement:
>
> https://www.americanancestors.org/Royal-Ancestry-of-Meghan-Markle.aspx
>

This part of the same-old same-old at least is interesting: "Thomas
Wayne Markle, through New Hampshire great-grandparents named Ellsworth
and Merrill, has colonial ancestors in common with eight presidents ...
and three First Ladies".

The disparity appears unusual - do you suppose this reflects an actual
phenomenon in the social and mating behaviour of presidents, or just a
failure to study the ancestry of their wives to the same extent?

Peter Stewart

[taf]

I have to say, I am with Will on this, at least in part. Every election, every royal marriage, NEHGR issues a publicity-seeking press release that gets picked up by the popular press. It then becomes 'common knowledge', but undocumented genealogy is never trustworthy, no matter who proclaims it to be true, and this kind of thing muddies the waters.

At a minimum, they could create a web page documenting the line at the same time they make the press release, but they can't be bothered. They (supposedly) did the work, so what's the problem? It is either lazy genealogy, or the line isn't as strong as they would have people believe, but either way it is sloppy genealogy.

It is also sloppy/lazy journalism - the media insists on confirming other material that they report, but when it comes to these genealogy stories, they simply regurgitate the press release. This is what gives us such gems as the 'most royal president' nonsense, the broadly reported claim that the presidential candidate with the 'best' royal descent won every US election until . . . the person who peddled died. Every election he would parade it out, and the press couldn't even be bothered to notice that in the previous election the proponent had predicted a win by the candidate who lost, or that 'every election' didn't even hold for the first two contested elections (Washington was a shoe-in): in 1796 Adams beat Jefferson, in 1800 Jefferson beat Adams, or several elections thereafter when the same candidates ran with different results.

taf

[Paulo Canedo]

Will and Todd there are sources for the american part of the line given in https://vita-brevis.org/2017/11/wentworth-connection/.
"The American Genealogist 20 [1943]: 77–85, 69 [1994]: 129–30; Walter Goodwin Davis, The Ancestry of Abel Lunt, 1769-1806, of Newbury, Massachusetts (Portland, Me., 1963), 13–17 (Skepper to Drake); Joseph Dow, History of the Town of Hampton, New Hampshire, 2: 690 (Drake); Biographical Review Volume XXI – Containing Life Sketches of Leading Citizens of Strafford and Belknap Counties, New Hampshire (Boston, 1897), 141 (Drake to Smith); Mildred D. Mudgett, Thomas Mudgett of Salisbury, Massachusetts and his descendants (Bennington, Vt., 1961), 69 (Smith to Merrill); and later vital record and census data."

[wjhonson]

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 2:44:15 PM UTC-8, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> Will and Todd there are sources for the american part of the line given in https://vita-brevis.org/2017/11/wentworth-connection/.
> "The American Genealogist 20 [1943]: 77–85, 69 [1994]: 129–30; Walter Goodwin Davis, The Ancestry of Abel Lunt, 1769-1806, of Newbury, Massachusetts (Portland, Me., 1963), 13–17 (Skepper to Drake); Joseph Dow, History of the Town of Hampton, New Hampshire, 2: 690 (Drake); Biographical Review Volume XXI – Containing Life Sketches of Leading Citizens of Strafford and Belknap Counties, New Hampshire (Boston, 1897), 141 (Drake to Smith); Mildred D. Mudgett, Thomas Mudgett of Salisbury, Massachusetts and his descendants (Bennington, Vt., 1961), 69 (Smith to Merrill); and later vital record and census data."

I am able to find several times the claim that the man who lived briefly in Boston Mass before he died there, was the same man who had been vicar of Thorpe, co Linc previously

But I'm not able to see any smoking gun that these two same-named men were the same man.

[taf]

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 2:06:58 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:

> This part of the same-old same-old at least is interesting: "Thomas
> Wayne Markle, through New Hampshire great-grandparents named Ellsworth
> and Merrill, has colonial ancestors in common with eight presidents ...
> and three First Ladies".
>
> The disparity appears unusual - do you suppose this reflects an actual
> phenomenon in the social and mating behaviour of presidents, or just a
> failure to study the ancestry of their wives to the same extent?

Clearly the latter comes into play, but I wouldn't discount is the historical bigotry of American politics either, which tended to lead to presidents that came from old-New England, Virginia, or New Netherlands backgrounds with only rare exceptions, and this didn't apply to nearly the same extent to their wives.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

It is a mystery to me why anyone - including presidential candidates or
people engaged to marry into the British royal family, and their own
families in both cases - would care in the slightest about this dreary
subject.

Can someone explain what satisfaction there is in tracing descent from a
royal ancestor? Is this supposed to confer some kind of distinction on
the modern descendant, as belonging to a special strain of humankind, or
is it just novelty value in linking to any grand historic personage no
matter how dim and witless?

Why does nothing like the same effort go into documenting possible lines
of descent to the present from ancestors who are equally or more
historic but not royal (or dim) - such as, say, Bach or Galileo?

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Canedo]

It's simple it's because people want to connect to each other and the royal lines are the easiest to document so the easiest to use to connect the people.

[Paulo Canedo]

This likely helps
The American Genealogist Whole Number 78 Vol. XX No. 2 October 1943 p. 81-85 The Skepper Family

[Peter Stewart]

Perhaps, but some presidents clearly married "up" the social scale by
most reckonings - like Kennedy - or across it in some vaguely
interesting way - like Trump three times.

Why the fascination with breeding anyway, unless people imagine that
their offspring have may some special cachet in future - like J.Q,
Adams, G. W. Bush, and (for some, apparently) Ivanka Trump?

Peter Stewart

[wjhonson]

It would only help if you've actually read it and can tell us how it proves that these two men are the same person

[John Higgins]

Since you've been looking into this, I assume that (being a diligent and thorough researcher) you must have read the two TAG articles on the Skepper line. These articles have been mentioned in the literature going back to at least 2004. Can you explain why these articles don't resolve your concern? What do they say (or not say) that make them unsatisfactory in your mind?

[Paulo Canedo]

Will, listen what is next will let me give an hyphotecial scenario you ask me to prove the man went to moon because you believe the footages were fake?

[wjhonson]

What I want is actual evidence, not hand waving and hypothetical scenarios

[John Higgins]

Have YOU read this article? Or have you reached a judgment on this line without reading it?

[Peter Stewart]

This doesn't help at all - in the present boring instance, the
connection of Meghan Markle to the British royal family wasn't
researched at her instigation, or at that of her family or the family of
her fiancé, so as far as I can see it had nothing to do with people
wanting to connect with each other.

Also I can't see that a 17th cousinship provides any kind of meaningful
connection.

And of course royal lines are only the easiest to document because they
have been the most studied, so you are offering circular reasoning
rather than explanation anyway.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Canedo]

Dear Peter, I'll approach your first point. Yes it wasn't either Meghan or her fiancee who ordered a connection to be found but it was investigated by people who wanted to connect Meghan to Harry and many others by tracing her ancestry to a king.

[nore...@san.rr.com]

> It is a mystery to me why anyone - including presidential candidates or
> people engaged to marry into the British royal family, and their own
> families in both cases - would care in the slightest about this dreary
> subject.
>

some people are curious about their ancestry and want to connect to royalty, perhaps because these people are best known

> Can someone explain what satisfaction there is in tracing descent from a
> royal ancestor? Is this supposed to confer some kind of distinction on
> the modern descendant, as belonging to a special strain of humankind,

to some, yes

or
> is it just novelty value in linking to any grand historic personage no
> matter how dim and witless?
>

to others, also yes

> Why does nothing like the same effort go into documenting possible lines
> of descent to the present from ancestors who are equally or more
> historic but not royal (or dim) - such as, say, Bach or Galileo?
>

actually, it does. however, this group is focused on britain as is most americans, thus posts are biased in that direction

[Peter Stewart]

On 01-Dec-17 10:50 AM, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> Dear Peter, I'll approach your first point. Yes it wasn't either Meghan or her fiancee who ordered a connection to be found but it was investigated by people who wanted to connect Meghan to Harry and many others by tracing her ancestry to a king.

This is not even remotely an answer to my question, which was Why does
anyone want to do this?

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 01-Dec-17 10:59 AM, nore...@san.rr.com wrote:
>> It is a mystery to me why anyone - including presidential candidates or
>> people engaged to marry into the British royal family, and their own
>> families in both cases - would care in the slightest about this dreary
>> subject.
>>
> some people are curious about their ancestry and want to connect to royalty, perhaps because these people are best known

But this doesn't begin to explain why some people want to connect
candidates for the US presidency the fiancées of British princes to
royalty. The personal curiosity and/or vanity of researchers are hardly
wrapped up in the vagaries of Meghan Markle's ancestry.

>
>> Can someone explain what satisfaction there is in tracing descent from a
>> royal ancestor? Is this supposed to confer some kind of distinction on
>> the modern descendant, as belonging to a special strain of humankind,
>
> to some, yes
> or
>> is it just novelty value in linking to any grand historic personage no
>> matter how dim and witless?
>>
> to others, also yes
>
>> Why does nothing like the same effort go into documenting possible lines
>> of descent to the present from ancestors who are equally or more
>> historic but not royal (or dim) - such as, say, Bach or Galileo?
>>
> actually, it does. however, this group is focused on britain as is most americans, thus posts are biased in that direction

This group is focused on medieval genealogy: it is merely pre-occupied
with Britain because most people default to the most readily accessible
aspects of the subject, whether it is their own ancestry or that of others.

The effort to trace descendants of Bach and Galileo, just two eminent
non-royal examples of very many who probably have traceable descendants,
is NOTHING like the widespread and intense effort to trace royal
ancestry for every person raised for any reason to "celebrity" status.

Peter Stewart

[nore...@san.rr.com]

---- Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> On 01-Dec-17 10:59 AM, nore...@san.rr.com wrote:
>> It is a mystery to me why anyone - including presidential candidates or
>> people engaged to marry into the British royal family, and their own
>> families in both cases - would care in the slightest about this dreary
>> subject.
>>
> some people are curious about their ancestry and want to connect to royalty, perhaps because these people are best known

>But this doesn't begin to explain why some people want to connect
>candidates for the US presidency the fiancées of British princes to
>royalty. The personal curiosity and/or vanity of researchers are hardly
>wrapped up in the vagaries of Meghan Markle's ancestry.

because it represents a challenge. some see important people and want to discover how, if at all, they are related. this extends to those in power.
as to motive, this delves into the realm of psychology, perhaps best answered by those directly involved/

I do agree that this does seem a bit silly

[Peter Stewart]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:41:55 AM UTC+11, nore...@san.rr.com wrote:
> ---- Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > On 01-Dec-17 10:59 AM, nore...@san.rr.com wrote:
> >> It is a mystery to me why anyone - including presidential candidates or
> >> people engaged to marry into the British royal family, and their own
> >> families in both cases - would care in the slightest about this dreary
> >> subject.
> >>
> >> some people are curious about their ancestry and want to connect to royalty,
> >> perhaps because these people are best known
>
> >But this doesn't begin to explain why some people want to connect
> >candidates for the US presidency the fiancées of British princes to
> >royalty. The personal curiosity and/or vanity of researchers are hardly
> >wrapped up in the vagaries of Meghan Markle's ancestry.
>
>
> because it represents a challenge. some see important people and want to discover
> how, if at all, they are related. this extends to those in power.

Meghan Markle is not going to be in power, unless it is in the form of social influence. She is of course a far more worthy subject of attention than most of the candidates (including successful ones) for the US presidency.

However, it would be a more substantial and potentially more rewarding challenge for British-focused researchers to find the closest living relatives of Shakespeare. But who is trying?

Peter Stewart

[John Higgins]

There are probably as many answers to your question as there are people "doing" this genealogy. And you probably won't be satisfied with most of the answers.

I suspect that many of the [dwindling number of] people in this group are interested in this area of genealogy simply because they enjoy doing the research. In a way, genealogy is like an endless and unlimited jigsaw puzzle. It's "the thrill of the hunt" that engages some people - it's a harmless pastime, isn't it?

[taf]

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 3:13:08 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:
> Perhaps, but some presidents clearly married "up" the social scale by
> most reckonings - like Kennedy - or across it in some vaguely
> interesting way - like Trump three times.

The dynamic I was describing has become a lot less prevalent in the post Roosevelt-Roosevelt era than before, and the election of Kennedy was a watershed, being the first Catholic and the first Irish, and the 'birther' movement is just an atavistic throwback to this earlier time, when Irish, Italians, Mexicans, Japanese, Chinese, Jewish or people whose names ended in -ski just weren't as American as someone with a WASP background.

> Why the fascination with breeding anyway, unless people imagine that
> their offspring have may some special cachet in future - like J.Q,
> Adams, G. W. Bush, and (for some, apparently) Ivanka Trump?

G.W. owed his election to his genealogical connection. J.Q.A. was different. He owed his status to the experience within government that came from being his father's son - some have called him the most intelligent president ever (a claim nobody would seriously make of the other president's son) and he was probably the most qualified non-incumbent ever to run for president, having first-hand experience with almost all of the operations of the government, and having intimate knowledge of how the founders intended the system to work. He was groomed to be president from even before his father was elected, so it is easy to see why he was chosen by the elitist electoral college over the crude frontier populist who got the majority of the popular vote. And he was a failure as president - go figure.

Elitism has a long history of coupling with genealogy, and this was a motivating force in the formation of the American genealogical societies - my family was here before the riff-raff (and mind you this is coming from a genealogist who proudly claims a lot of riff-raff in the tree). In New England, whether it was through the DAR or the Mayflower Society, it was a way of distinguishing themselves from all the later immigrant spawn, who were dirty and poor (or worse, nouveau rich, the unworthy bastards), while in the region my mother was from it had an overlay of 'we may be dirt-farmers now, but we come from important people' (or at least from more important people than the neighboring dirt-farmer). And the more prominent the ancestor, the better (as if it didn't highlight just how far they had fallen).

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Yes, and so is navel-gazing.

My problem is in understanding why so much energy and even passion goes into it. There are now more than 70 posts in this thread, an unusual rate of participation.

Perhaps that kind of disproportionate interest in futile topics and facile questions may account for the dwindling number of people in this newsgroup.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 12:05:25 PM UTC+11, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 3:13:08 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:
> > Perhaps, but some presidents clearly married "up" the social scale by
> > most reckonings - like Kennedy - or across it in some vaguely
> > interesting way - like Trump three times.
>
> The dynamic I was describing has become a lot less prevalent in the post
> Roosevelt-Roosevelt era than before, and the election of Kennedy was a watershed,
> being the first Catholic and the first Irish, and the 'birther' movement is just
> an atavistic throwback to this earlier time, when Irish, Italians, Mexicans,
> Japanese, Chinese, Jewish or people whose names ended in -ski just weren't as
> American as someone with a WASP background.
>
> > Why the fascination with breeding anyway, unless people imagine that
> > their offspring have may some special cachet in future - like J.Q,
> > Adams, G. W. Bush, and (for some, apparently) Ivanka Trump?
>
> G.W. owed his election to his genealogical connection.

He may have owed his candidacy to this, but he owed his "election" to a biased court decision the first time and to a complacent electorate the second.

> J.Q.A. was different. He owed his status to the experience within government
> that came from being his father's son - some have called him the most intelligent
> president ever (a claim nobody would seriously make of the other president's son)

This is a claim that some have stretched to make for Jimmy Carter too - again, not an outstandingly successful president.

> and he was probably the most qualified non-incumbent ever to run for president,
> having first-hand experience with almost all of the operations of the government,
> and having intimate knowledge of how the founders intended the system to work.
> He was groomed to be president from even before his father was elected, so it is
> easy to see why he was chosen by the elitist electoral college over the crude
> frontier populist who got the majority of the popular vote. And he was a failure
> as president - go figure.
>
> Elitism has a long history of coupling with genealogy, and this was a motivating
> force in the formation of the American genealogical societies - my family was
> here before the riff-raff (and mind you this is coming from a genealogist who
> proudly claims a lot of riff-raff in the tree). In New England, whether it was
> through the DAR or the Mayflower Society, it was a way of distinguishing
> themselves from all the later immigrant spawn, who were dirty and poor (or worse,
> nouveau rich, the unworthy bastards), while in the region my mother was from it
> had an overlay of 'we may be dirt-farmers now, but we come from important people'
> (or at least from more important people than the neighboring dirt-farmer). And
> the more prominent the ancestor, the better (as if it didn't highlight just how
> far they had fallen).

I'm not sure why "nouveau riche" is seen as a problem in a society of the self-made. But if old-money elitism has any advantage, it is surely that generations have had nothing better to do with their lives than to develop good taste: the abject failure of taste by the US electorate in choosing between two unsatisfactory candidates for the presidency is as baffling now as it was a year ago. Anyone who couldn't see a fiasco coming then is probably too tasteless and prejudiced to admit its grotesque realisation now.

Peter Stewart

[Colin Withers]

I am guessing that the only reason they do this is because the headline sells newspapers.

If the headline said: Colin Withers and Marconi are cousins! Or Peter Stewart and Shakespeare are cousins! How many newspapers would that shift?

The sad fact is any and all stories concerning the royal family sells newspapers, only surpassed by who is sleeping with who from the cast of TOWIE. :)

>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
>the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[Peter Stewart]

On 01-Dec-17 5:47 PM, Colin Withers wrote:
> I am guessing that the only reason they do this is because the
> headline sells newspapers.

I'm not convinced that this is any part of the reason behind SGM
indulging in the topic.

>
> If the headline said: Colin Withers and Marconi are cousins! Or Peter
> Stewart and Shakespeare are cousins! How many newspapers would that shift?

Colin Withers and Peter Stewart are not marrying into the Marconi or
Shakespeare families, but if a thread appeared about a relationship
between anyone here and either of these distinguished figures it would
be an improvement on the subject line of this thread.

> The sad fact is any and all stories concerning the royal family sells
> newspapers, only surpassed by who is sleeping with who from the cast
> of TOWIE. :)

Happily for me, I have no idea what TOWIE is. The world still has plenty
of royal families, if not plenty too many of them - and no doubt all of
them are at least as interesting (or otherwise) as the stolid Windsors.
The only distinguishing factor I can see is that the Windsors are
Anglo-Celtic and English-speaking. Unfortunately SGM has come to
represent a narrowing band of self-centred interest in one particular
ethnic and cultural corner of medieval and early-modern genealogy.

Peter Stewart

[nore...@san.rr.com]

Unfortunately SGM has come to
> represent a narrowing band of self-centred interest in one particular
> ethnic and cultural corner of medieval and early-modern genealogy.
>
> Peter Stewart
>
>

this seems to be true of american genealogy in general...

[Andrew Lancaster]

Peter

Why do you think that the general public are in this case all that different from people with more specialized knowledge of medieval genealogy?

To me it seems the interest comes from similar aspects of human nature. Snobbery is surely an aspect for some people but for example I notice a lot of the articles emphasize things like Harry and Meghan being cousins, so it seems there is a fascination in how we all connect if we go far enough back.

People like to connect the dots between things, and as regards those things, people are especially interested in people.

I also think you must, if you think about it, realize that there is nothing circular about royalty being easier to trace. This is also because there are more old records about them and their relatives, not just because of modern newspapers. A famous non royal like Bach might have a lot of records about him, but not so much about his relatives. By definition it was important to know who the closest relatives were of anyone whose importance was heritable.

...But I think it would be wonderful to see more of a movement to trace lines of other types of historically recorded people. I have found studying such people to be one of the most rewarding experiences in genealogy, but often difficult. Before 1500 I think in Europe most such lines will be citizens in wealthy free cities? I think very few of these can be pushed beyond say 1100 (unless they have an aristocratic marriage) but even that is remarkable of course.

[Kelsey Jackson Williams]

Dear Peter, et al.,

In terms of s.g.m, this "narrowing band of self-centred interest" *can* be fixed, but only by those of us who work on topics other than late-medieval / early modern royally descended English men and women. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but if we really want to expand the remit of our discussions - and, in doing so, perhaps also reverse the "dwindling numbers" here, which seems to me to be a real concern - we need to start posting something new on Bach's descendants or what have you and also start responding to those sorts of posts to generate the critical mass needed to keep them going.

All the best,
Kelsey

[Peter Stewart]

On 01-Dec-17 7:14 PM, Andrew Lancaster wrote:
> Peter
>
> Why do you think that the general public are in this case all that different from people with more specialized knowledge of medieval genealogy?

I don't understand what you mean by this - my comments were regarding
this thread on SGM, and I don't recall saying anything about the general
public.

> To me it seems the interest comes from similar aspects of human nature. Snobbery is surely an aspect for some people but for example I notice a lot of the articles emphasize things like Harry and Meghan being cousins, so it seems there is a fascination in how we all connect if we go far enough back.

But we are not all Harry and Meghan. Note that the initial poster did
not write "Harry and I are cousins" or "Meghan and I..." or "John
Hancock and Beyoncé are cousins" or anyone else for that matter. This
thread is entirely about a kitsch interest in royalty and celebrity.

> People like to connect the dots between things, and as regards those things, people are especially interested in people.

Obviously this newsgroup is not going to dicsuss the pedigrees of livestock.

>
> I also think you must, if you think about it, realize that there is nothing circular about royalty being easier to trace. This is also because there are more old records about them and their relatives, not just because of modern newspapers. A famous non royal like Bach might have a lot of records about him, but not so much about his relatives. By definition it was important to know who the closest relatives were of anyone whose importance was heritable.

The circular reasoning I meant is trying to explain an interest in
tracing royal connections by stating that royal connections are easier
to trace. I may be unusual, but I find harder challenges more
interesting than facile ones.

> ...But I think it would be wonderful to see more of a movement to trace lines of other types of historically recorded people. I have found studying such people to be one of the most rewarding experiences in genealogy, but often difficult. Before 1500 I think in Europe most such lines will be citizens in wealthy free cities? I think very few of these can be pushed beyond say 1100 (unless they have an aristocratic marriage) but even that is remarkable of course.

Many of the "Harry and Meghan are cousins"-type threads here trace
people to Edward III through John of Gaunt, that is almost universal
ancestry for British people with lines of gentry (fallen or otherwise)
in their background. Consequently it applies to a majority of the
participants in SGM over the years. Anyone descended from Edward III and
Philippa of Hainaut also has far more interesting European ancestors
behind that rather tiresome and stodgy couple. This European ancestry
includes many uncertainties, and confusions in the commonly available
record. Yet how often are questions raised here about these? It seems
that connecting to Edward III or some other similarly nondescript king
is an end in itself for some people, rather than a means to make further
and more colourful discoveries beyond the sheltered fields of England.

Peter Stewart

[Brad Verity]

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 4:24:50 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:
> But this doesn't begin to explain why some people want to connect
> candidates for the US presidency the fiancées of British princes to
> royalty. The personal curiosity and/or vanity of researchers are hardly
> wrapped up in the vagaries of Meghan Markle's ancestry.

For awhile there was a theory (probably originally floated by a genealogical society, though I first heard about it on this newsgroup way back about 2000) that when it came down to the two final candidates for the U.S. Presidency, whichever was descended from the more recent monarch would win the election.

It's pretty ridiculous, but it may offer a portion of explanation as to why the royal lines for U.S. Presidential candidates get some coverage in the press. Last year we had a line from Edward III for both Hillary Rodham Clinton and for Donald Trump. Both are poorly sourced lines from MyHeritage's Geni.com database. The one for Hillary, through the Northumberland gentry family Roddam of Roddam Hall, fails. Starting in the late 16th-century, the Roddams do indeed descend from Edward III. But Hillary's father doesn't descend from these Roddams, at least not from a Roddam born after they intersect with the Edward III bloodline.

Trump's line of descent from Donald Mackay, 1st Lord Reay (1591-1649, descended from James IV) would appear to be equally problematic. The NEHGS is no doubt researching his ancestry, and if they were able to verify the line presented on Geni.com, I'd think we would have heard by now.

Tracing the ancestry of spouses of the British Royal family used to be the sole provenance of the heralds at the College of Arms, but now in the digital age all of us amateur genealogists can have a go at it. Not only is Meghan Markle the first American actress to marry a prince since Grace Kelly, and the first American divorcee to marry a royal duke since Wallis Simpson, she's the first (that I'm aware of) mixed race person of any country to marry a British royal. She's interesting in several aspects, not least of which is her ancestry.

> This group is focused on medieval genealogy: it is merely pre-occupied
> with Britain because most people default to the most readily accessible
> aspects of the subject, whether it is their own ancestry or that of others.
> The effort to trace descendants of Bach and Galileo, just two eminent
> non-royal examples of very many who probably have traceable descendants,
> is NOTHING like the widespread and intense effort to trace royal
> ancestry for every person raised for any reason to "celebrity" status.

I'm not going to begin to defend our current culture of celebrity, as I certainly don't buy into it. However, most genealogy tv series, like 'Who Do You Think You Are' and 'Finding Your Roots', feel that having famous guests increases viewership, especially when it comes to those viewers who aren't genealogists. 'Genealogy Roadshow' is an exception - instead of celebrities, it traces the ancestry of everyday Americans who contact the show. I don't think any of the series are overly preoccupied with tracing back to royalty. The British WDYTYA has even traced a celebrity (actress Frances De La Tour) back to gentry ancestors (the Delaval family) without mentioning that she can then be traced further back to Edward III. On the other hand, the series had fun when an unlikely celebrity (East Enders actor Danny Dyer) could be traced back to that monarch, and made the royal line the focus of his episode. Though even then, more time was spent covering Thomas Cromwell than the Plantagenet king.

As others have pointed out, descendants of royalty are already well-researched - and, when it comes to the Plantagenets, widespread. There is a much greater chance for an American celebrity to be traced back to Edward III than to, say, Thomas Jefferson (who of course was himself descended from Edward III), simply because Edward III's seed had about four hundred more years to spread out.

When the American WDYTYA series uncovered that Alabama-born actress Courtney Cox descends from Edward I, they only dedicated about five minutes of the episode to her GARD ancestor Col. Thomas Lygon, but over a half hour to her ancestors Thomas Lord Berkeley, Edward II and Hugh Despenser. Cox knew nothing of the history of Edward II so it was an opportunity to educate her (and probably most of the viewers). Though I personally wished the show had spent more time researching Lygon and exactly what prompted his immigration to the New World, I was pleased to see medieval British history get such a focus.

It's also worth pointing out, that for every celebrity these genealogy shows can trace back to royalty, there are about five or so other celebrities with no royalty among their traceable ancestors, but generating episodes just as interesting, so my hunch is that a royal line is seen by the genealogists and producers behind these series as a nice (often unexpected) discovery rather than the ultimate goal. I'm sure if any of the celebrities on these series could be traced back to Bach or Galileo, that would very much be highlighted.

[Peter Stewart]

On 01-Dec-17 9:15 PM, Brad Verity wrote:

<snip>

> Tracing the ancestry of spouses of the British Royal family used to be
> the sole provenance of the heralds at the College of Arms, but now in
> the digital age all of us amateur genealogists can have a go at it.
> Not only is Meghan Markle the first American actress to marry a prince
> since Grace Kelly, and the first American divorcee to marry a royal
> duke since Wallis Simpson, she's the first (that I'm aware of) mixed
> race person of any country to marry a British royal. She's interesting
> in several aspects, not least of which is her ancestry.

But why only her ancestry in common with her husband-to-be? I still
don't have a glimmer of understanding about this obsession with royal
links, and saying it's just because they are already studied - or if
not, then readily enough found - doesn't explain it. I think the
psychology behind this probably goes further than such a shallow
rationale, perhaps even to some residual infantile idea of magic
appertaining to kings and their ilk.

>> This group is focused on medieval genealogy: it is merely pre-occupied
>> with Britain because most people default to the most readily accessible
>> aspects of the subject, whether it is their own ancestry or that of others.
>> The effort to trace descendants of Bach and Galileo, just two eminent
>> non-royal examples of very many who probably have traceable descendants,
>> is NOTHING like the widespread and intense effort to trace royal
>> ancestry for every person raised for any reason to "celebrity" status.
> I'm not going to begin to defend our current culture of celebrity, as I certainly don't buy into it. However, most genealogy tv series, like 'Who Do You Think You Are' and 'Finding Your Roots', feel that having famous guests increases viewership, especially when it comes to those viewers who aren't genealogists.

I haven't seen 'Finding Your Roots', but some episodes of 'Who Do You
Think You Are' have been fascinating - for instance those with radiantly
intelligent subjects, such as Meryl Streep, and deeply emotional
encounters with history such as the one with Rashida Jones or
fascinating mysteries such as the story uncovered by Jason Sudeikis.

> 'Genealogy Roadshow' is an exception - instead of celebrities, it traces the ancestry of everyday Americans who contact the show.

But celebrities ARE everyday Americans, or whatever nationality - they
come from all sorts of backgrounds, and anyway fame is as humdrum a
feature as red hair and no more meritorious than brown eyes.

> I don't think any of the series are overly preoccupied with tracing back to royalty. The British WDYTYA has even traced a celebrity (actress Frances De La Tour) back to gentry ancestors (the Delaval family) without mentioning that she can then be traced further back to Edward III. On the other hand, the series had fun when an unlikely celebrity (East Enders actor Danny Dyer) could be traced back to that monarch, and made the royal line the focus of his episode. Though even then, more time was spent covering Thomas Cromwell than the Plantagenet king.
>
> As others have pointed out, descendants of royalty are already well-researched - and, when it comes to the Plantagenets, widespread. There is a much greater chance for an American celebrity to be traced back to Edward III than to, say, Thomas Jefferson (who of course was himself descended from Edward III), simply because Edward III's seed had about four hundred more years to spread out.
>
> When the American WDYTYA series uncovered that Alabama-born actress Courtney Cox descends from Edward I, they only dedicated about five minutes of the episode to her GARD ancestor Col. Thomas Lygon, but over a half hour to her ancestors Thomas Lord Berkeley, Edward II and Hugh Despenser. Cox knew nothing of the history of Edward II so it was an opportunity to educate her (and probably most of the viewers). Though I personally wished the show had spent more time researching Lygon and exactly what prompted his immigration to the New World, I was pleased to see medieval British history get such a focus.
>
> It's also worth pointing out, that for every celebrity these genealogy shows can trace back to royalty, there are about five or so other celebrities with no royalty among their traceable ancestors, but generating episodes just as interesting, so my hunch is that a royal line is seen by the genealogists and producers behind these series as a nice (often unexpected) discovery rather than the ultimate goal. I'm sure if any of the celebrities on these series could be traced back to Bach or Galileo, that would very much be highlighted.

I agree with this - but if the show was produced by some of the
contributors to SGM the focus would be rather different, I'm afraid. It
would concentrate on British gentry, nobility and royalty to an
unbecoming degree, and would leave an impression of a narcissistic and
almost proto-racist bent in mono-cultural priorities: wanting to trace
the most notable ancestors who are in many respects most like oneself is
not entirely different in motivation from wanting to have only
neighbours and friends who reflect one's own identity.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 01-Dec-17 9:15 PM, Brad Verity wrote:

> she's the first (that I'm aware of) mixed race person of any country
> to marry a British royal.

By the way, although this may be strictly true (and of course strictly
untrue if you could go back far enough), she is not the first close
relative of mixed-race ancestry since one of the duke of Edinburgh's
cousins married a descendant of Pushkin with a line of Ethiopian ancestry.

Peter Stewart

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:49:05 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:
> Anyone descended from Edward III and
> Philippa of Hainaut also has far more interesting European ancestors
> behind that rather tiresome and stodgy couple. This European ancestry
> includes many uncertainties, and confusions in the commonly available
> record. Yet how often are questions raised here about these?

Like when I asked about her ancestors the Counts of Loon? Philippa is an interesting ancestor for me, the way my own brain works, because the last person in my family tree from Belgium (or proto-Belgium), where I live. :)

Anyway, yes, many but not all genealogists and non-genealogists find the English royal family an attractive subject in itself. This undoubtedly plays a conscious and unconscious role in what gets published, both good and bad.

Personally I very much enjoy discussions on this list about continental lines, and non-noble lines such as London citizenry, or professional people who moved country before modern times.

[Peter Stewart]

On 01-Dec-17 11:21 PM, Andrew Lancaster wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:49:05 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> Anyone descended from Edward III and
>> Philippa of Hainaut also has far more interesting European ancestors
>> behind that rather tiresome and stodgy couple. This European ancestry
>> includes many uncertainties, and confusions in the commonly available
>> record. Yet how often are questions raised here about these?
> Like when I asked about her ancestors the Counts of Loon? Philippa is an interesting ancestor for me, the way my own brain works, because the last person in my family tree from Belgium (or proto-Belgium), where I live. :)

I'm not sure if you have been reading Gen-Med/SGM for long enough to
realise how exceptional your interests are here nowadays - the archive
will show that this was not always the case. In the earliest days many
ancestry tables were posted, that opened discussions of individuals and
lines from all over Europe and occasionally beyond. There were always
more discussions of British ancestry than any other, which is hardly
strange in an English-language forum, but not the constant and almost
invariable harping that we currently get. To some extent this may be due
to people trying harder than before to fill in blanks with lines that
had never came up in the heyday of diversity. But whatever the cause, it
is certainly unattractive to potential contributors from most of the world.

Peter Stewart

[riemorese...@gmail.com]

Touching on the question of why there is an emphasis on royal ancestry, I think the roots can be quite complex.
Throughout history, new dynasties-to-be have typically sought to connect themselves to the predecessors whom they had supplanted. That was true in ancient Egypt, and true when King Henry VII married Princess Elizabeth, among many other examples.
In the United States, interest in royal ancestry seems to have arisen in the late 19th century. This was a complex period in US history. The centennial of the Revolution in 1876 marked a coming of age, in a sense, along with the rapid industrialization of the whole nation after the Civil War, mass immigration, and expansion westward, along with the ultimate closing of the frontier.
What you saw emerge was a new class of wealthy people, some super rich, and they everything money could buy. That money began to attract less affluent nobility from Europe, seeking to marry the daughters of these families. What the US families lacked was ancestry; the quest for royal descents filled that need for some.
Moreover, the massive immigration of the late 19th century created ongoing nativist concerns, and people sought to connect themselves to the past. It is no coincidence that interest in the Pilgrims and Revolutionary War ancestors soared in this period. It was a way for middle- and upper-class people, scattered across the continent, to tie themselves to the original colonies and the first settlers.
By this time, of course, anyone with rich British Isles ancestry has one or more descents from English/Scottish/Irish monarchs. That is a mathematical certainty. The question is what can be proven.
Just some thoughts, at any rate!

[taf]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 2:15:29 AM UTC-8, Brad Verity wrote:
>
> For awhile there was a theory (probably originally floated by a genealogical
> society, though I first heard about it on this newsgroup way back about
> 2000) that when it came down to the two final candidates for the U.S.
> Presidency, whichever was descended from the more recent monarch would
> win the election.

I mentioned this several posts back the thread. It was the work of a shameless self-promoter who managed to buy the publishing rights to one of the peerage titles (Debrett's maybe, I don't remember) and thus gain instant credibility with the press for all of his genealogical pronouncements, which were of the bisected donkey variety. As I said in the other thread, he would predict the wrong candidate, then four years later make the same claim to perfection, having 'discovered' (i.e. made up/accepted without the slightest shred of evidence) a better line for the winning candidate, and the press would report it all again.

> It's pretty ridiculous, but it may offer a portion of explanation as to why
> the royal lines for U.S. Presidential candidates get some coverage in the
> press.

Don't think so. He was leeching off the interest, not giving rise to it. Even in the '80s there were people into the ancestry of presidents (as de facto US pseudo-royalty), and people into royal descents so it is only natural to combine the two. The primary reason it gets covered these days is that by about the second month of our interminable campaigns, the press is desperate for anything novel to say, and then fthis press release from NEHGS comes across their desk. They can't resist.

taf

[Paulo Canedo]

Another reason why people seek royal descents is because they want to connect themselves to famous historical events on which their existence depended.

[taf]

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 3:03:37 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Why does nothing like the same effort go into documenting possible lines
> of descent to the present from ancestors who are equally or more
> historic but not royal (or dim) - such as, say, Bach or Galileo?

A few years ago I wrote something up documenting a previously-unknown close relationship (1st c, 1 r) between an 18th century New York immigrant and the iconic physical scientist Michael Faraday, and the level of interest in it was appreciably underwhelming.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On 02-Dec-17 2:46 AM, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> Another reason why people seek royal descents is because they want to connect themselves to famous historical events on which their existence depended.

But why is a documented line of descent from Edward III seen as a
personal connection? That is what mystifies me - obviously he has
millions of descendants today, known and unknown, so what on earth is
special or interesting about being one of them?

My interest in medieval genealogy is mainly in how people were related
to each other, horizontally and vertically. I find childless people
every bit as interesting as those with offspring. This interest does not
extend to any idea that I am a marvel of nature and need to know how I
came about from distant, isolated fragments of ancestry - royal or
otherwise. Most of my ancestry is Anglo-Celtic, but beyond the people
whom I actually know I don't give a damn for the details. Edward III is
just someone I know about, not someone I know. At a personal level he is
nothing more to me than he is to someone without European ancestry.
Whatever nugatory influence he had on the development of the modern
world belongs equally to everyone in it.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Was the NY immigrant a "gateway" ancestor? It is sadly puzzling that
this would not be more interesting to readers concerned with genealogy
than a connection to royalty, to the degree that Faraday's achievements
were more valuable and influential than those of almost any royal
personage who ever lived.

I'm afraid this problem runs deeper in modern society than just the
absurd priorities of the genealogical community. Maybe it's down to the
failure of an education system that concerns itself with what to think
at the expense of how to think.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:
> Was the NY immigrant a "gateway" ancestor?

No, the immigrant's ancestry was likewise previously unknown (obscured buy a rather dramatic shift in surname spelling, analogous to something like Featherstoneshaugh becoming Fanshaw). I did find a female-line descent from a visitation family, but they were a Commonwealth family that seemingly arose just in time to get recorded and then disappeared again into obscurity. The pedigree gave three male generations behind the connection, but only one marriage to a woman with the all-too-common (in more ways than one) surname of Sheppard, so that brought an end to the backwards trajectory.

taf

[P J Evans]

I've been working on my extended tree out to second cousins, and including ancestors of aunts and uncles by marriage (and the great-aunts and uncles as well). Some interesting people have turned up - and a few unexpected ones.
But even the extended tree is mostly non-royally descended.

(FWIW, when I first learned some of my ancestors had descents from royalty, back in the 1980s, my response was "that and a quarter will get you a cup of vending-machine coffee".)

[Peter Stewart]

As I don't drink out of styrofoam I've never tried vending-machine
coffee, but I take your point.

I don't recall when I first read about some of my ancestors with lines
of descent from English royalty, but I do recall the interest of
learning about those particular ancestors (the Arundells of Lanherne).
This to me is the most enjoyable aspect of medieval genealogy, whether
following British lines or any other. I greatly admire researchers who
can piece together family lines and tell their stories from primary
sources. Where these families happened to reside or what they owned is
not the exclusive focus, but rather how they lived and interacted with
their personal, social, economic and political environment. The rigorous
work of experts such as Paul Reed and Rosie Bevan on English families -
going very far beyond my capacities - impresses me as the best of this
newsgroup over the years I have participated in it, along with the
contributions of others such as Stewart Baldwin and Todd Farmerie in
their different fields of study. The aim of my comments is not to have
less British genealogy, but rather to have more from different fields
(and more from before the 14th century).

Peter Stewart

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:14:50 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:

> But why is a documented line of descent from Edward III seen as a
> personal connection?

It depends what you mean by "personal connection". Obviously in a literal sense this is a chain of connection between persons, and interesting to many people, including me, and presumably you.

Presumably what you mean to criticize is for example when someone feels personally proud that they are a "relative" of someone 20 generations ago, with whom they share as much DNA and common heritage as any other person 20 generations ago. And on that point of course I would agree with this logic. But I have to say that the human mind does have a tendency to looks for ways of seeing itself as special, and that "irrational" sentiment no doubt plays a role for many people - even people who know it is irrational.

(Can irrational or even corrupt sentiments help inspire people towards rational and uncorrupted results? I suppose they do.)

> That is what mystifies me - obviously he has
> millions of descendants today, known and unknown, so what on earth is
> special or interesting about being one of them?

To me it seems that having a relatively modern person who you know well (or who you happen to be) helps my mind focus on the reality and relevance of the long chains of connection between generations, which can otherwise seem very abstract. I suppose that for at least some readers of newspapers, this is also an interest when newspapers tell them that two modern and familiar people are distantly related.

> My interest in medieval genealogy is mainly in how people were related
> to each other, horizontally and vertically. I find childless people
> every bit as interesting as those with offspring. This interest does not
> extend to any idea that I am a marvel of nature and need to know how I
> came about from distant, isolated fragments of ancestry - royal or
> otherwise. Most of my ancestry is Anglo-Celtic, but beyond the people
> whom I actually know I don't give a damn for the details. Edward III is
> just someone I know about, not someone I know. At a personal level he is
> nothing more to me than he is to someone without European ancestry.
> Whatever nugatory influence he had on the development of the modern
> world belongs equally to everyone in it.

Absolutely. This seems correct to me but it also shows just interesting the chains of connections from Edward III can be.

[Peter Stewart]

On 02-Dec-17 8:28 PM, Andrew Lancaster wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:14:50 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>> But why is a documented line of descent from Edward III seen as a
>> personal connection?
> It depends what you mean by "personal connection". Obviously in a literal sense this is a chain of connection between persons, and interesting to many people, including me, and presumably you.
>
> Presumably what you mean to criticize is for example when someone feels personally proud that they are a "relative" of someone 20 generations ago, with whom they share as much DNA and common heritage as any other person 20 generations ago. And on that point of course I would agree with this logic. But I have to say that the human mind does have a tendency to looks for ways of seeing itself as special, and that "irrational" sentiment no doubt plays a role for many people - even people who know it is irrational.
>
> (Can irrational or even corrupt sentiments help inspire people towards rational and uncorrupted results? I suppose they do.)

Of course they do - that is the value of religion.

But your presumption about me is amiss, I do not find any interest
whatever in descent from Edward III. A better king than him, such as St
Louis, might be gratifying to have as an ancestor for the first split
second of discovering the fact, but that is as far as this kind of
atavistic irrationality goes with me. I can take just as much pleasure
in thinking of hominid ancestors or any earlier life form that
contributed to my existence. The fact that I share a species with an
ancestor and know his or her name and every generation in between is to
me just a heap of little nothings adding up to nil.

>> That is what mystifies me - obviously he has
>> millions of descendants today, known and unknown, so what on earth is
>> special or interesting about being one of them?
> To me it seems that having a relatively modern person who you know well (or who you happen to be) helps my mind focus on the reality and relevance of the long chains of connection between generations, which can otherwise seem very abstract. I suppose that for at least some readers of newspapers, this is also an interest when newspapers tell them that two modern and familiar people are distantly related.

I wouldn't read any further in a newspaper that told such frivolous
information. I doubt that many ever do, except for tabloids with royalty
and presidential candidates, and I prefer not to waste time over such
wet zaniness. I have never seen Meghan Markle in an acting role, and I
have never met her or Prince Harry. They seem to me from legitimate news
reports to be a delightful and sensible young couple, and I wish them
just as well as I would any other engaged pair with equally fine aims
and hopes in their life together. But there my interest in them, and in
their connection with each other, fizzles out completely. Interest in
their connection to a common ancestor never fizzled in.

Peter Stewart