RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Hackstaple on Thursday 02 September 04 11:01 BST (UK)
-
I am puzzled. A great many American family historians claim that they are descended from Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, Sir Isaac Newton, Shakespeare, Alexander the Great and other such famous names - I have seen the Charlemagne claim many times - here is one such website devoted entirely to delusion http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Pond/7984/krslgst.html .
I am particularly amused by those who are "descended from" Richard the Lionheart and Elizabeth I, neither of whom ever had children.
Either "professional" genealogists in the States operate like fortune tellers - you hear what you wish to hear - or the descendants of almost everybody famous simply picked up sticks and went across the Atlantic. Why do the Americans, who grabbed independence well over 200 years ago, strive so hard to prove they are really British?
Why do none of these people with fabulous pedigrees claim kinship to Attila the Hun or Vlad the Impaler or Dr. Crippen? That might be more credible! :P
-
Hi Hackstaple,
Interesting question. ;D
I think maybe as America is a relatively young country they know it is inevitable their family will have originated elsewhere, and who knows where it could be. It is surely an attractive prospect to be the lost descendent of the Virgin Queen. ;D And some people are more gullible than others.
This thread has an interesting post by D ap D:
http://www.rootschat.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=8364.0
Maybe it is this theory that keeps people hoping?
Kazza.
-
Hackstaple
I totally agree with you 100%
We often see these claims, but never see the proof.
As D&D pointed out in another thread, (incidentally a generation is normally classed as 30 years) - there were insufficient people on the earth to match up with our supposed ancestors.
If Adam & Eve were the first couple, then surely we must all be related.
Chris in 1066Land
-
Hi Hackstaple,
I just had a look at that 'dreamtime' site. Are these people serious? I can't believe it ::)
Aaron
-
Along the same lines ....
A cachet for americans is to trace their ancestry back to the original "Mayflower Settlers".
According to the number of americans claiming descent from the original settlers, there must have been several thousand passengers on the Mayflower.
The "complete list" (http://www.mayflowerhistory.com/Passengers/passengers.php) says 99 !
-
Hi folks
well im in total agreement all the way,im a Seymour out of wedlock :-[ so many lines down the chain, but im also british and proud of it......
i dont want any claim to fame only to find my grt grt grt grt grt grandpappy ;D.........have a nice day now you hear!...... ::)
-
I am puzzled. A great many American family historians claim that they are descended from Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, Sir Isaac Newton, Shakespeare, Alexander the Great and other such famous names - I have seen the Charlemagne claim many times - here is one such website devoted entirely to delusion http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Pond/7984/krslgst.html .
I am particularly amused by those who are "descended from" Richard the Lionheart and Elizabeth I, neither of whom ever had children.
Either "professional" genealogists in the States operate like fortune tellers - you hear what you wish to hear - or the descendants of almost everybody famous simply picked up sticks and went across the Atlantic. Why do the Americans, who grabbed independence well over 200 years ago, strive so hard to prove they are really British?
Why do none of these people with fabulous pedigrees claim kinship to Attila the Hun or Vlad the Impaler or Dr. Crippen? That might be more credible! :P
I can only speak for this American. It's been my experience that most American genealogists aren't necessarily trying to prove royal, or even English descent, we just want to know who and where we came from. Unless one is a pure Native American, (formerly referred to as "Indians"), then every American is either an immigrant themselves, or descended from someone who emigrated here within the past 400 years. And it's the immigration records that make going beyond recent history so tricky. When we are able to succeed in struggling through the immigration records and tracing our ancestors to some place across the pond, it's a real accomplishment.
One possible theory as to why I think many people claim descent from famous folks is that the hard work has already been done for us -- the genealogies of the famous are well documented and readily available, and it therefore only takes making a connection to a recent ancestor to "hook into" the line of a more distant and perhaps famous (or infamous) one.
Recently, to our utter surprise, a cousin traced our Loper great-grandparents on my mother's side back to King Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Eleanor and Henry are our 22nd great-grandparents. Eleanor is supposedly descended from Charlemagne (still a bit sketchy on that one -- still some work to do there), so we list him as a possible ancestor of note, without yet having that lineage worked out completely. It just makes for fun conversation when the family gets together.
But that's all it really is -- a fun conversational topic within the family. What would mean much more to us is if we could trace our lineage beyond my father's grandfather. That branch of the family tree stops with him and has proven incredibly difficult to trace. If I were able to find out more about him and determine the names of his parents, grandparents, etc., it would mean so much more to me than this English royalty. I'd gladly throw back all that English heritage to gain more information about my Danish ancestors.
And regarding relationships to more shady, infamous folks, we haven't yet found evidence of a relationship to Attila the Hun, but my sister-in-law is descended from Dr. Mudd, the physician who set John Wilkes Boothe's broken leg after he assassinated Abraham Lincoln. Mudd's name truly is mud in America!
-Mary
-
A cachet for americans is to trace their ancestry back to the original "Mayflower Settlers".
I've never understood the prestige of being a Mayflower descendent, as they weren't even the first English settlement in America. The Jamestown, Virginia settlers have them beat by 13 years, first arriving in 1607.
According to the number of americans claiming descent from the original settlers, there must have been several thousand passengers on the Mayflower. The "complete list"... says 99 !
Not sure about your backwards math, here, but I do know another source (http://www.mayflower.org/pilgrim.htm) has the headcount on the boat at 102. But only about half survived the first winter. I count roughly 13 generations between 1620 and now. After thirteen generations, starting with anywhere from 25 to 50 couples each producing multiple children, it is very plausible that there are currently millions of Mayflower descendents.
-Mary
-
Actually, some may not be too far off.
Claiming Queen Elizabeth I as your gggggggggreadmother may be pushing it a bit.
Think about it, seriously. The kings and queens of long and not so long ago did at times have more than one child. Say a king and queen had 12 children. They can't ALL be king or queen of England. Granted some got married off to other nobility. Now, those 12 children each have, say 8, 6, or 5 children of their own, and so on and so forth.....
I'll do a real life example, from my own tree.
Okay a couple marries and has 6 children
From those 6 children they get 30 grandchildren, then they... I think you get the idea.
I don't have any known ancestry from the Mayflower, but I have found some royal blood. I'll put it up for critiquing? if anyone wants me to. If you can disprove a line, I'd be grateful.
http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=5921
http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=6684
-
Tariana
I would be interested in reading about your royal blood connection.
I found on my fathers family tree a connection to royalty, but proving it is difficult as the irish records are hard to find.
Christine
-
it is 4:30 am here in America, I need some sleep (insomniac). I will make a note to write out my royal line for you later on today.
--I just put that so you'd know I didn't forget
-
It's a human failling to want a famous ancestor to brag about!
;D
My mother always used to say we were descended from Captain Cook. For awhile now I have known that is not possible, as he didn't have direct descendants. I have done some investigation on his siblings etc, and don't think we are descended from any of them (sigh!) Another great idea goes by the board.
But a cousin has traced one line of the family back to English royalty and nobility. I have told an irreverent friend he should now refer to me as Lady Marie of Wyalla!!! :)
Here in Australia, after many years of trying to obliterate convict origins if one had them, it is now very classy if you can find ancestors who came here on the First Fleet. Doesn't matter if they were soldiers or convicts - if they were on the First Fleet, you are in a very special elite!!! (Doesn't apply to me!)
Marie
-
Dear Lady Marie of Whyalla,
We were always told that Henry HACKING, Quartermaster on the 'Sirius' in the 1st Fleet was ours (OK, not the elite i.e. not a convict - but would have to do).
Well, I can say with utter confidence that we certainly aren't descended from him - though there might be a connexion (sadly yet to be proven). Though I think if my rells and forebears had had any idea what a rogue that man was they would have had a fit before claiming him! I, of course, would love to have him as a rell.
You are so right about the change in attitude to convict ancestors. My lot used to bring out the passage certificates of the HACKING ancestors to prove they weren't convicts but had actually paid good money to come here in 1850.
Nowadays, I wish, I wish that I could find a convict!
Incidentally, I've just found that the ancestor I thought was named TINKLER was probably TINKER. And there was a TINKER on the 'Mayflower' - well, let's forget that he and his wife and son not only came from the wrong county but also died in the first sickness ...
Now, MCLAWS - there's another of my names. Could there be any connexion to General Lafayette MCLAWS of the American Civil War ...
Surely I can find, if not royalty, at least someone famous (or better still notorious) somewhere.
JAP
PS: My children have a sort-of convict Gg-Uncle - sentenced to 7 years transportation to Van Diemen's Land in 1848 for forgery and uttering. But, would you believe, just before he was due to set sail in 1850 he was pardoned!!!
-
I really don't think there are that many family historians in America that think they must be famous or descended from royalty. I am sure as many people in other countries do the same thing. Americans are not the abnormality. I am rather insulted by that broad brush you paint us with. Americans all know we came from somewhere. None of us other than Native Americans were born here. I find my ancestors came from 8 different countries. Think about trying to figure out how to research 8 different vital records registrations, parish records, census (if they had one) and ways of life. A difficult task at best. Some days I work on my German line, another Scottish, then British then back to Russia.
An intersting point to remember is many of the early Americans that left Britian were fleeing religious persecution or were second sons of wealthy families that wanted to make their won wealth as the famil estate cold not be broken up any further. It was not a cheap trip over tho the colonies Many did come from nobility. They were poorer relations but had some money none the less. A pauper was not going to secure passage on the ships in the Great Migration in the 1600's. It was an economic investment.
Sorry to ramble. I could go on forever.
-
I second that nutkin
I know things that I am, such as Italian, that I can't search due to brick walls. Americans, with the exception of Native Americans are basically mutts. We didn't all come from one place.
I read on the US census site, that there are more people of Irish heritage, living in America than there are people in Ireland.
--I'm still working on my royal line. I'm doing some backtracking--
-
Hi All!
Great stuff,keep it coming.Iam an avid dilletante,{is that an oxymoron,or just moronic?}
Howsomever,without the help of our Cousins my hunting for missing Family names would have come to a dead stop.An instance,a family grave list indicated that the persons named were not in said grave,or details were not necessarily true.
The Family name+forenames popped up on American,Canadian,Latin American,you name it sites.Dates were close enough for me,so were small indications of temperament,putting it politely!
Please forgive my lazy attitude,but, by God,Im having fun!!! 8)
-
JAP,
Sad about these reputed ancestors who turn out not to be ancestors at all, isn't it?
But a cousin researching a particular part of the family HAS found convicts! In fact, a convict marrying the daughter of a convict who came here with her mother as a six year old child. She is very proud of them - and so am I! Not first fleeters, but still, convicts at least... Balances out the royalty on the other side! ;D
That part of the family subsquently became ultra respectable and certainly never owned up to convicts in the background. They are probably revolving in their graves now, knowing we have found them!
MarieC
-
I may have found a royal ancestor.
I need to wait for my aunt to email me the family info first though.
To be sure my starting point is correct.
I'd just like to mention that not all of us are LOOKING to have royal ancestry. It just pops up. I wish my family was interested in it's history. No one knows a blessed thing. I have to hunt for nearly EVERYTHING. If someone else slapped a king in, then there I am trying to fix it. >:( Bad relative, BAD! :P It doesn't help when you dont have all day to work on a particular line, so you just upload the gedcom from ancestry.com or some such place, then you have that person's mistakes to fix... Bleh.
-
Hi All!
S,Me again,the positively,definitely,irrevocably,avowed, last time I put my head in the door to see whats going on!!!
Convicts,yes got some,and stories to go with 'em.
Have followed progress from nadir to zenith,from road gang to cattle kings.Fascinating,one even celebrated in "The Man from Snowy River".
Go get em Tiger,details later.
Goggy
-
I really don't think there are that many family historians in America that think they must be famous or descended from royalty. I am sure as many people in other countries do the same thing. Americans are not the abnormality. I am rather insulted by that broad brush you paint us with. Americans all know we came from somewhere. None of us other than Native Americans were born here. I find my ancestors came from 8 different countries. Think about trying to figure out how to research 8 different vital records registrations, parish records, census (if they had one) and ways of life. A difficult task at best. Some days I work on my German line, another Scottish, then British then back to Russia.
An intersting point to remember is many of the early Americans that left Britian were fleeing religious persecution or were second sons of wealthy families that wanted to make their won wealth as the famil estate cold not be broken up any further. It was not a cheap trip over tho the colonies Many did come from nobility. They were poorer relations but had some money none the less. A pauper was not going to secure passage on the ships in the Great Migration in the 1600's. It was an economic investment.
Sorry to ramble. I could go on forever.
No a pauper would not secure passage in the 1600s but many paupers did later when the parish paid for their fare to America rather than provide for then. In a similar vien many convicts were sent to America between 1618 & 1775
Cheers
Guy
-
Hi All,
You all enjoy your tree, it is yours and if you find interesting connections of any kind then that is a bonus.
There has to be descendants of Royalty somewhere, so why not your family?
I hope you all find interesting ancestors, mine are a bit boring up to now, I wouldn,t mind a royal or convict or two to liven it up,
Enjoy your research
Jakky
-
Okay, here goes. Please correct me if you see any mistakes. I will refer to living ancestors as Mister and Miss.
Henry Tudor VII + Elizabeth Plantagenet
Mary Tudor + Charles Brandon
Eleanor Brandon + Henry De Clifford
Margaret De Clifford + Henry Stanley
William Stanley + Elizabeth De Vere
Ann Stanley + Robert Kerr (Nesbit)
Agnes Nesbit + William Curry
Robert Curry + Jane Seawright
Samuel Curry + Margaret (Mary Polly) Seawright
Jane Curry + Reuben Skelton
Nancy Skelton + Lewis Dowell
Martin Dowell + Malinda Fincannon
Roxanna Dowell + Jeff Alexander Fortner
Laura Belle Fortner + Albert Wesley Beam
Ray Clement Beam + Hattie R Virginia Julian
Miss Beam + Glenn Boyd Smith
Miss Smith + Mister Ferguson
Miss Ferguson (me)
-
No disrespect to those of you who can (or wish to) claim blue blood ... but the day I encounter any member of the in-bred British royalty in my own direct ancestry is probably the day I'll want to hang up my researching cap! :)
Paul
PS
Now a nice solid Cromwellian - that would be different ;)
-
No disrespect to those of you who can (or wish to) claim blue blood ... but the day I encounter any member of the in-bred British royalty in my own direct ancestry is probably the day I'll want to hang up my researching cap! :)
Paul
PS
Now a nice solid Cromwellian - that would be different ;)
actually all humans are inbred. Just some are more so than others. I suggest you look up "the seven daughters of eve" and "mitochondrial dna"
that's one good example.
-
Sorry to butt in here,the Island of Madiera has more Blue Blood in its inhabitants than you can poke a stick at.Thats where a lot of Gentlefolk dropped their embarrassing little bundles in times past.
As for anyone making nice for old Oliver Cromwell!!Would you feel the same about old Bin Laden??Tut Tut.
Cheers,Goggy
-
No disrespect to those of you who can (or wish to) claim blue blood ... but the day I encounter any member of the in-bred British royalty in my own direct ancestry is probably the day I'll want to hang up my researching cap! :)
Paul
PS
Now a nice solid Cromwellian - that would be different ;)
lol ;D
I must be weird, I'm always very chuffed (pleased) when I find one of my relatives went to jail, or was born a bastard (saves me the trouble in tracing another male line ;D You know who your mum is, but father's, well it is only who the mum says who the father is. If I had my way ,my tree would just be female lines - which of course are the hardest to do), or couples who weren't married for years, or old couples living well into their late 80's in those days when many died young is always nice.
I'd be most disappointed too with finding a royal in the family - not that there's much chance of that with my honest hardworking crims, unless they were robbing the royal households for lace hankies or animal stock lol
I want to know what has happened to my and my hubby's , and thousand upon thousands of other peoples poor ancestors who emigrated to America. Seems not many Americans are related to them, but royals seem to breed a lot. It's amazing how many "common folk" went to America. I'll have my common coal mining , and farming ancestors back please - I'll love them even if nobody else will
I think I should go and browse the net to adopt some posh rellies; It's not right I really like my common ag labs, farmers, coalminers and sailors. Now who can I make my Ann Davies to come from? There are thousands to choose from, born at the right date, right place. I Have a Llewellyn in my tree that I can't trace any further back with proof - now there's a possibility, I can fit him into another tree , ah Welsh royalty- They didn't kill them all off after all lol, my Llewellyn ancestor escaped :o , he was the illegitimate son of Llewellyn The Last.
All in light humour :)
-
actually all humans are inbred. Just some are more so than others. I suggest you look up "the seven daughters of eve" and "mitochondrial dna"
that's one good example.
They certainly are, Tariana ... and as Cell says, a terribly high proportion of children born to each generation can be proven, through DNA testing, not to be the product of the 'claimed' father.
I'd love to see a comparison of the UK Royal Family's DNA results with DNA extracted from the remains of a royal even five or six generations ago - I think it would make interesting reaing! :)
As I said, no disrespect to those of you who enjoy claims of Royal descent, however. I am sure there are a lot more arond than we probably imagine!
-
Our family myth is that we are descended from the (now defunct) Austrian Royal Family and my great-aunt has a dinner service to prove it (which I have never seen!).
Of course, it is proving hard (near impossible) to push back through my Italian ancestry into my Austrian ancestry and so I am nowhere near proving this. I cannot even get proper information on my great-grandarents let alone any further back.
Maybe that's a good thing though - it's a nice family myth to hold on to :)
-
Just noticed this thread. I posted some mathematical speculations last year on the subject (see below) - we are in fact all descended from Charlemagne (and everyone else back then).
It's been said that all those with Scottish ancestry are descended from King Malcolm Canmore ("big head") III (1031-1093); that all with English ancestry are descendants of King Edward I of England (1272-1307), and that all with the slightest trace of European blood in them are the descendants of the Emperor Charlemagne (742-814).
I'd bet we all would like to find some aristocratic ancestor, irrespective of our attitudes to the aristocracy and our political opinions - it is after all, the only way to get further back than the 16th century.
A Danish neighbour recently showed me her family genealogy (privately-published - with heavy wooden bindings - in the 1950's), tracing her family back to Danish medieval royalty, something she was understandably proud of, perhaps especially as her family in recent generations has been smallholders and factory workers. I unfortunately offered the opinion that such royal ancestry was probably more common than we often imagine. The lady was not amused!
This led me to some arithmetical speculation.
Assume an average 30-year generation (women giving birth between the ages of 20 and 40). The earliest records of the aristocracy seem to be around the 8th century, 13 centuries ago. That's about 40 generations. 2 to the power 40 is over one million million (i.e a British billion, if anyone still uses them) ancestors. Certainly a lot more than the 6 thousand million alive today - or then, of course!
Let's assume of the sake of simplicity that all a given individual's ancestors came from Scotland. I haven't been able to find population estimates for Scotland in the Dark Ages, though the population of Roman Britain in the 4th century is estimated to have been 1.5 million.
Say 100,000, and assume for the sake of argument they all had descendants. Then on average, each person alive then would appear 11 million times each on our modern genealogist's family tree. Some more, some less, but not even rigid social structures could prevent any individual alive then from eventually contributing to the ancestry of everyone in that country. Only complete geographical isolation could have done that, and in the Dark Ages some people travelled a lot more than is often imagined - eg. Vikings travelled to Central Asia where they traded with Arabs, Africans and Chinese.
So we really are all related, and at a much more recent date than the clan mothers and fathers suggested by DNA research (which can only trace direct maternal and paternal lines). And the numbers involved indicate the limits of genealogy - we're probably lucky that the church records don't go further back than 1550!
However, there's not much point in it if you can't prove the link and find that slender branch or two that suddenly opens up to reveal countless and lengthy well-documentend branches of the nobility. So what are the chances? Let's assume all Scottish church records went back to 1550 (no, don't laugh - we're assuming 'best case') That's 15 generations, i.e there are 32768 ancestors at that level. I'm guessing the population of Scotland at the time was around 500,000, so those ancestors constituted 6% of the population - at best: even here, the same people probably will turn up in different branches, what with people marrying 'double cousins' and the like.
What percentage of the population were aristocrats (i.e. those who recorded their ancestry)? 0.5% is a pure guess - so 2500 aristocrats out of 500,000. Pick an individual living in 1550 at random, and do this 32768 times, corresponding to your ancestors 15 generations ago.
We can say at random, since we're assuming we know nothing so far about those ancestors.
The probability that any given individual in Scotland in 1550 is an aristocrat is 2500/500000 i.e the probability that the individual is not is 497500/500000. The probability that none of the 32768 'random' individuals are aristocrats is 497500/500000 multiplied by itself 32768 times.
(actually you should subtract one from the 500000 each time, since that indivudual is no longer 'in the running', but lets keep it simple).
497500/500000 to the power 32768, a very small number indeed. Even if we took only 1000 ancestors, the chance of none of them being an aristocrat is under 1% (again, assuming the 'randomness' provided by having no knowledge of these ancestors - you can't just pick 1000 more recent ancestors and assume the same, since you presumably know more about them). The chance of an aristocrat being among the 32768 is therefore extremely close to 100%.
So not only is is absolutely certain that all of us here researching our Scottish ancestry are descendants of medieval royalty (and everyone else who lived then), but there is a very high chance of finding an aristocratic branch leading back before 1550 if only you can follow most of your ancestry back 15 generations using the Old Parish Records.
-
My Friends Grandmother remembers going to
her Grandfather's funeral in Wales as a child.
But when she went back years later the grave and
any burial record could not be found.
He did change his name because he was illegitimate
and child to a maid and somone with rather a lot of
money (some sort of prince of wales). We have found the possible father on the census but she was told to get any records from her great great
grandfather she has to have the records unsealed.
Does this still happen.
Jinks
-
Quote from: Paul E on Sunday 08 May 05 00:37 BST (UK)
No disrespect to those of you who can (or wish to) claim blue blood ... but the day I encounter any member of the in-bred British royalty in my own direct ancestry is probably the day I'll want to hang up my researching cap!
Paul
Hmm. I knew I'd seen that cap somewhere before :o
-
;D ;D ;D Nice one, Al!
(Notice, too, that Eddie is wearing a kilt - obviously trying to confound David Douglas's empirical calculations! :))
Paul
-
Now a nice solid Cromwellian - that would be different
As it happens, Ollie C's grandfather is one of my direct forebears. (me being descended along a female line). His family tree is quite readily available on-line. "Great" I thought - "at least one line that should be easy to trace. " And what happens? he turns out to be yet another Williams from south Wales. Another one for the collection.
-
My surname is Godden, and years ago I read that it was a variant of Godwin. Now, King Harold, rightful king of England, was Harold Godwinson, son of Earl Godwin. So I used to reckon, especially when I was teaching history, that I am descended from King Harold and if it hadn't been for William the Conqueror I would be 400 and somethingth in line to the throne.
-
What an entertaining read
-
This is a very interesting read even stumbling upon it many years later. I think the original post touched upon a very credible issue that unfortunately still plagues the internet with false ancestries.
I have noticed that people in the US love themselves quite a lot with their bigger than life personalities, but many seem to have separation anxiety issues from Europe and strive to pursue their connection to Englands elite, because it is another thing to brag about.
This separation issue to many either by intent or by being lazy in their research does lead to many false ancestries littering the internet.
I note how one commenter mentions that many were persecuted by religion and were second sons, yet this glosses over the forgotten history that many thousands of these "immigrants" and "founding fathers" were common criminals. Before Australia where did the British send their criminals? It is hard to imagine to people that the original convict colony was the USA. As a result many who cannot trace their lineage were either from poorer common families or were convicts of which documents to help identify them are few and far in between to connect to families in Europe. The chances are if your immigrant ancestor was from a noble family, there should be evidence to prove just that. What the US offered was a new life and a new narrative.
I have battled over the years with the spam of false ancestry many of which is unfortunately published in books all over the US. These books were written about 100 years ago by frauds and con-men and I do need to say that many in the US are willing to take information at face value without stopping to think and question 'is that is correct?'. When an issue is address and a person is educated in line with the evidence (or lack thereof) another will come out with the same disproven theory and start publishing their false ancestry all over the internet starting the education process again.
Today with celebrities we also battle the tabloids who with (and I stress) the bare minimum of research will 'stumble' upon some disproven false ancestry to generate a story and suddenly it is published all around the world. Of course, these people will then start citing because it's in the media so it must be true and the people of the US have a habit of circulating unsupported information.
For instance take the recent Kim Kardashian claim that she is related to Conor McGregor. First to note was that this story came from a Scottish tabloid clearly target towards a US audience as click-bait. The key to this claim was a Thomas MackGehee in the US was the son of Patrick macGregor, Cheiftain of the Children of the Mist. This claim extends from the "genealogist" Charles Henry Browning (now considered a fraud) who first made the claim was based on family letters. Problem was that the letters Browning cited never mention any MackGehee/macGregor connection and in fact were written in the 1750s when the claim centres around a son of Patrick macGregor who would have been born in the early 1600s. Disproven by evidence, logic, Clan Gregor and even YDNA, this story preys upon the US people's gullibility and to this day the Scottish tabloid author will not disclose his research notes to support his published claim. So no, Kim Kardashian is not a proven macGregor, nor is there any proven connection to Conor McGregor whose ancestry is not know to actually connect to the Chieftain's paternal lineage keeping in mind not all of the same Clan surname shared the same paternal lineage as evident of the Clan Gregor YDNA project.
Along the line of claiming descent from virgins, there are those out there who will believe that Kim Kardashian could claim her rightful place as Queen of Scotland a premise that is not only stupid beyond belief, but even if her connection was true, there are many hundreds if not millions of people who would be first in line well before her, essentially a good portion of Europe.
-
"I have noticed that people in the US love themselves quite a lot ..."
Yes, My Lord, whatever you say, My Lord.
-
Well said
-
I have noticed that people in the US love themselves quite a lot with their bigger than life personalities, but many seem to have separation anxiety issues from Europe and strive to pursue their connection to Englands elite, because it is another thing to brag about.
This separation issue to many either by intent or by being lazy in their research does lead to many false ancestries littering the internet.
..... I do need to say that many in the US are willing to take information at face value without stopping to think and question 'is that is correct?'
Yeah, those Americans and their lazy assumptions, eh? Why can't they be more like us?
-
It just happens.
We all have Blue Blood, some find the link to it and some do not.
I do not know how the Yanks find their own branches I have always struggled with finding any US ancestral records on Ancestry dot com for any of my Wife’s or my own family. We have found a few but researching the US DNA Cousins is generally very hit and miss for us.
Our own Blue Blood connection was found more by chance, a Wedding of one of my ancestors was to a lady whose surname and location tied her to a family whose ancestral home was a Castle, the flood gates opened.
My Wife found her link via a visit to the local Archives and whilst researching a particular Lancastrian family we found her 3xGGP’s in the Family Tree of the family concerned. The tree just followed the Paternal line back to the 12C but what first stood out was one of them married a Stanley, that opened the floodgates.
Me, I am more interested in one of my xGreat Uncles who was a thief and burglar who was convicted and sentenced to death not once but twice, for it to be commuted to life on a Hulk until Transportation to Oz where once his sentence was over he was not allowed to return to the UK.
-
I have noticed that people in the US love themselves quite a lot with their bigger than life personalities, but many seem to have separation anxiety issues from Europe and strive to pursue their connection to Englands elite, because it is another thing to brag about.
This separation issue to many either by intent or by being lazy in their research does lead to many false ancestries littering the internet.
..... I do need to say that many in the US are willing to take information at face value without stopping to think and question 'is that is correct?'
Yeah, those Americans and their lazy assumptions, eh? Why can't they be more like us?
I am not exactly sure how to read this message, but to clarify nobody is demanding American's be more like us it is just a well researched observation of a trait that has come out of that part of the world and it is not to say that other people around the world are also culprits. By "us" I am not sure of the intent as I am not British assuming you are "in Cumbria". Every culture has pros and cons (as you will learn if you have studied tourism), but this when people are trying to undertake real research it comes across as very annoying having to filter through un-researched and unsourced family trees. There are even some in the US who I have collaborated with who are getting tired of the sheer quantity of fake ancestry coming out of that country. It seems to be a trend that volume = truth, however we should know better and check as critical self-aware thinking is a great trait to our species.
If the above message wasn't a jab, now worries, but if it was a jab about assumptions, nothing about what I have written is an assumption for I have spend many hours, days and months collaborating with others through this minefield of misinformation and the biggest issue on the main family tree sites I come across on a near daily basis is the false ancestry of many apparent gateway ancestors in the US. Many of these people are unaware of books (both old and new and where to find them) along with up to date research and formality application of any defined gateway ancestor.
A post by a user in the US about being related to Rob Roy macGregor summed this situation up perfectly: "I am related to Rob Roy macGregor, but how do I prove it". The elephant in the room is how can somebody know this as a fact without any proof. Sure ol' granny may have spun a yarn or two about some family rumour, but they key to any claim are sources and corroborating sources.
If anybody doubts what is said, I challenge them to look online at the family tree websites Ancestry.com, My Heritage, Family Tree, etc. and see it all in motion. I have recorded and calculated that about 80% of trees that I have encountered are false and I have barely touched the surface to all the trees on that site and the majority of these incorrect trees are from users in the US. If you look at the site Family Search you will see on many profiles of nobility and royalty users have added research notes like "my 12ggf". It is easy to check their lineage and all I have checked are from where? The USA. So in supporting my statement "the US love themselves quite a lot", yes this is true and they want everyone to know it. On another note most of these users who add the notes have false ancestry from an 'immigrant' who they claim a gateway ancestor without providing any sources and not even a detailed explanation to justify it. The latest I have researched tried to hitch an ancestor to a family in Scotland against formal parish records held on the site Scotlands People. Checking the records, it proved not only did the couple not have a son of that name, but the "source" given was a baptism 20 years later in Liverpool! This is by far not a one off, but a plague.
Also a shout out to username "Erato", you would be the first of my subservient minions. But while you may have been registered to this site for many years, I am relatively new and trust me when I say that finding a unique username that nobody has taken took some time! Oh and just a reminder, it is "Lord Vader".
-
"just a well researched observation of a trait that has come out of that part of the world ....."
One seldom encounters full strength, industrial grade horse pucky of this quality and quantity but, here it is, folks.
-
"just a well researched observation of a trait that has come out of that part of the world ....."
One seldom encounters full strength, industrial grade horse pucky of this quality and quantity but, here it is, folks.
Why the aggression and why follow this post if it stirs you up?
Lets hash this out, what do you observe out there in the researching world? What logical counter do you have to my "well researched observation" rather than trying to just throw blunt statements from the comfort of your home.
How often do you research and contribute to the global community? Do you do enough research that you can form a constructive counter opinion based on your experiences?
If one claims "horse pucky", you should be able to back it up! This is exactly the issue I have highlighed out there in the community, lots of talk and no follow up.
-
A pet irritation is seeing someone has copied a photo from your tree to theirs stating it's someone else
-
A pet irritation is seeing someone has copied a photo from your tree to theirs stating it's someone else
This is a big issue and the same for documentation uploaded. I had a person from the US try to steal my 2x Great grandfather who migrated to Australia and I had to explain that I had the documentation to support his connection to his parents in England and I helped set him on the path of his correct ancestor who was by chance a 7th or 8th cousin.
Everybody should ask permission before taking. Firstly it is the respectful thing to do and secondly by asking the question it may help confirm if it actually belongs to your ancestor.
I always ask because I want to know if they own the document/photo themselves or had sourced from elsewhere. I find it is important when archiving sources to identify as best as practically possible the origin of the source as well as source you obtained it from. It is a safe bet that most online are not properly documenting their sources and many will just use the 'save' function on say Ancestry.com.
-
"just a well researched observation"
You can't argue with science.
How's that separation anxiety coming along, Erato?
-
If one claims "horse pucky", you should be able to back it up! This is exactly the issue I have highlighed out there in the community, lots of talk and no follow up.
No - if you come on to a forum and start making silly and insulting generalisations about a whole continent of people, you have to expect some sort of reaction and ridicule.
As for asking Erato "How often do you research and contribute to the global community?", how about 17 years and over 6,000 contributions to this forum as against your 15 posts?
-
If one claims "horse pucky", you should be able to back it up! This is exactly the issue I have highlighed out there in the community, lots of talk and no follow up.
No - if you come on to a forum and start making silly and insulting generalisations about a whole continent of people, you have to expect some sort of reaction and ridicule.
As for asking Erato "How often do you research and contribute to the global community?", how about 17 years and over 6,000 contributions to this forum as against your 15 posts?
I agree a post like that will cause some reaction, and yes it is a generalisation, but it is not a blind generalisation. This is something that (evidence of this thread) has not only just been observed by myself and is a real problem to the world of family history. It is a issue that was bound to happen as many in the US cannot find their pathway back to Europe and the common reaction is 'if you cannot make it, fake it' which is why you will see countless forums arguing about gateway ancestors not once, but over again because the next oblivious person will come to the table with the same disproven gateway theory simply because they have copied it from another without checking which is why I stated generally people in the US take things at 'face value' as something that I have observed.
Also nobody said it was science, this is something that I have logged over my years of researching my own and others family trees. I mean everybody logs their research... right?
As I understood it was my cultural trait not taking criticism well, after all I have had many American's tell me my culture cannot take criticism and from experience American's really do not hold back on their opinion. Now when I call it like it is (like they do), it is they who cannot take criticism.
Least we forget the original post was a jab at what a person has observed about people from a certain part of the world making interesting claims.
I am from New Zealand, so go ahead let's have some criticism, what do we Kiwis do in the world of family history that annoys the rest of the world.
Hats off 6000 posts is a lot, I guess with a number like that you can rest on your laurels as posting that number and only using this forum apparently makes one a great researcher. I assume you can guarantee to me that all 6000 posts are directly helping people.
-
Just wanted to add that some early New England settlers went as servants, so were neither wealthy (able to afford the passage) nor fleeing religious persecution nor criminals.
About half of my children’s ancestry is via New England to Canada and the first in their direct paternal line arrived in Salem County, Massachusetts from Yorkshire in 1640 as a servant. We don’t know if he was indentured or not, but over time he established his own mill.
Many early New England genealogies were published at the end of the 19th century and they were certainly not all fraudulent. Many early settlers have hundreds of thousands of descendants, but keep in mind that over the centuries, there were many intermarriages. Many New Englanders whose families lived in the same area for centuries are often related to their spouses or neighbours and may not even know it.
Also, I guess the type of crime depends how “proud” you might be of an ancestor. Two of my distant relatives married men, one of whom raped his step daughter and went to jail (and later married her) and another killed his newborn child (blamed on shell shock after WW1). Crime is crime, not sure it is ever something to be proud of, though petty crime was often committed out of desperation.
-
"Many early New England genealogies were published at the end of the 19th century and they were certainly not all fraudulent."
Very true. There were a lot of antiquarians and local history buffs and they had a lot to work with because those early New Englanders kept town records practically from the outset. One whole section of my tree went to Maine and Massachusetts in the 1600s and they are very well documented [not by me]. Where in Britain they originally came from is not so well established but is of little consequence to me since, unlike the allegedly stereotypical American, I don't give a hoot about blue blood. If I wanted to find it, I have a convenient gateway ancestor in the person of my own mother who came to the US in 1946.
-
I don't give a hoot about blue blood. If I wanted to find it, I have a convenient gateway ancestor in the person of my own mother who came to the US in 1946.
Interesting one should be so quick to jump to defence about having blue blood after claiming no care. Something I had said must ring true to your predicament otherwise you would not have taken such offence. People are free to claim what they want, but blue blood I would hope one would be able to support such a claim and let the public check the credentials.
It is agreeable there are some well researched and documented genealogies of early US settlers down to present, but for every one true there are hundreds of false connections found at Ancestry.com, My Heritage, Family Search, etc. where people will either through lack of thinking or intent will steal ancestry from others just so they can fake that Gateway ancestry.
But hey if anybody claims it, they should be able to put their money where their mouth is and check with the formal organisations who use professionals to keep detailed tabs on the noble and royal pedigrees.