RootsChat.Com

England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Sussex => Topic started by: Ringrose on Saturday 12 September 09 15:24 BST (UK)

Title: Sussex Family Historian Article---dont believe it
Post by: Ringrose on Saturday 12 September 09 15:24 BST (UK)
Have just seen an article in the most recent edition which I find hard to believe. In the opening paragraph the lady says she is the 13*great grandaughter of William the Conquerer,the 38th grandaughter of Alfred the Great and the 52st ggrandaughter of Cerdic King of Wessex .Next she states she has only been researching since the 1911 census came out.
I would love to know how many hours she has spent at record iffices getting the right facts. Yes she has an unusual name  but how any one can research that number of names in such a short time amazes me.I see that Family Search is mentioned  but as we all know that site is just a pointer and we should not accept what we see until proven.
Any one else seen the article.
Ringrose
Title: Re: Sussex Family Historian Article---dont believe it
Post by: petmas on Saturday 12 September 09 16:02 BST (UK)
Don't tell me her name is Smith  ;D
I had some one in the US send me a tree with about 20,000 names on but it was just disjointed bits, prunings of family trees of people that probably could be close in that they lived in the right time.
Title: Re: Sussex Family Historian Article---dont believe it
Post by: behindthefrogs on Saturday 12 September 09 16:06 BST (UK)
It doesn't take much disproving.  The earliest a child could have been born to Alfred the Great would be about 866.  This means that the 25 generations between him and William the Conqueror were born in two hundred years if that was a direct line.  A new generation every 8 years.

On the other hand 15 generations from William the Conqueror is a generation every 60 years.  That doesn't seem likely either.

David
Title: Re: Sussex Family Historian Article---dont believe it
Post by: swebby on Saturday 12 September 09 17:11 BST (UK)
Yes I read it today, was a bit surprised that it made it into the issue.
Title: Re: Sussex Family Historian Article---dont believe it
Post by: forester on Saturday 12 September 09 18:02 BST (UK)
What a shame that I gave up my subscription this year.  ;D

Phil
Title: Re: Sussex Family Historian Article---dont believe it
Post by: seahall on Saturday 12 September 09 21:59 BST (UK)
Hi All.

Un-believable.  ::)

Isn't it always the way Phil, that subscriptions run out just
when you need them.  ;D

On a happier note I met a descendant from Raunds at the
Heritage Day today and we link with documentation back to
Little Addington in the 1700's, and neither of us knew about
each other.  :)

Sandy
Title: Re: Sussex Family Historian Article---dont believe it
Post by: Rod In Sussex on Sunday 13 September 09 14:32 BST (UK)
With about 4 generations a century and 3 surviving children who had 3 children each  etc etc etc.......it is likely that about 12,000,000,000,000,000,000 people could be related to Duke William, with a few crossed lines and not a few bits of doubling back here and there etc etc etc.  ???

It is therefore likely that we are all related to William the Bastard as the Duke of Normandy was also known. The problem is proving it!  :o

Another thought is that you, who ever you may be, are almost certainly my long lost cousin many times removed!  :D

Rod
Title: Re: Sussex Family Historian Article---dont believe it
Post by: behindthefrogs on Sunday 13 September 09 15:04 BST (UK)
Why not?  My wife is possibly descended from William's mother Herleve of Falaise through her subsequent marriage to Herluin Count of Normandy.

If that is true a line can be traced back to Charlemaine and through him to Petronius Probus who was a Roman Consul in 322.

Pass the salt someone I need another big pinch.
Title: Re: Sussex Family Historian Article---dont believe it
Post by: bearkat on Sunday 13 September 09 15:09 BST (UK)

On a happier note I met a descendant from Raunds at the
Heritage Day today and we link with documentation back to
Little Addington in the 1700's, and neither of us knew about
each other.  :)

Out of interest - Do you consider them a relative or someone researching the same name?

Just wondered when someone stopped being a relative and became a fellow researcher.  ???
Title: Re: Sussex Family Historian Article---dont believe it
Post by: Redroger on Sunday 13 September 09 16:37 BST (UK)
I am told of a recent report that all blue eyed people are related. Believe th story is that between 2 and 4 thousand generations ago, a single mututation produced a person whose eyes stayed blue. At 25 years per generation it must have happened between 50 and 100 thousand years ago, difficult to comprehend, but more believable that this stuff about this tree being completed in 10 minutes flat!!!
Title: Re: Sussex Family Historian Article---dont believe it
Post by: seahall on Sunday 13 September 09 21:00 BST (UK)
Quote
Out of interest - Do you consider them a relative or someone researching the same name?

Hi Bearkat.

Certainly the first part of your question, however far removed.  :)

I offered to show him a book another relative had written on the family,
which would add to his information on his family tree.

I wouldn't do that for someone just reseaching the same name.

Also the fact we could reel of our own families and see the ties in our
lineages, I think meant more.

I have a few Rootschatters that are rellies, as I am sure others here
have also.  :)

Sandy
Title: Re: Sussex Family Historian Article---dont believe it
Post by: Redroger on Monday 14 September 09 17:37 BST (UK)
According to a Historian at Sheffield Uni, all families who have less than 20 deaths recorded on the GRO index between 1838 and 1841 are likely to descend from a common ancestor.