RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: westlass on Thursday 24 November 16 21:22 GMT (UK)
-
A must watch , Danny Dyer , wanted it to go on , really enjoyed it .
-
At first I thought his East End attitude was a bit much but I liked him more as it went on. Some funny moments came out of it!
-
Aaarrrgghhh!! I had visitors & had totally forgotten to set series record. I only saw the last 5 mins! :'( :'( I've now set it to record the rest of the series. Frostyknight.
-
Enjoyed it, even with the ham acting! ;D
Skoosh
-
Aaarrrgghhh!! I had visitors & had totally forgotten to set series record. I only saw the last 5 mins! :'( :'( I've now set it to record the rest of the series. Frostyknight.
Looks as if it is repeated next week if you missed it
http://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/ff9k9s/who-do-you-think-you-are--s13-e1-danny-dyer
-
Although interesting I found myself a tad irritated by his strutting.
-
Thank you for taking the trouble to look that up Groom. :) :) Unfortunately it says not Northern Ireland. I live in Dublin and we receive the NI version of the BBC. Hopefully I'll get to see it some time.
-
Thank you for taking the trouble to look that up Groom. :) :) Unfortunately it says not Northern Ireland. I live in Dublin and we receive the NI version of the BBC. Hopefully I'll get to see it some time.
Second one down is NI isn't it - Thursday 1st Dec 12.10am (Northern Ireland,Wales)
-
It should be available to watch online on iPlayer if you've missed it.
-
Really enjoyed it. He was funny, and so amazed as his ancestors got higher and higher up the scale.
I have read a report that 99% of British people are descended from Edward III? Proving it, however, is the difficulty. Would love to find such ancestors and if I did I would be as gobsmacked as he was. I liked that he said it would give him more self confidence.
Would have liked to see him telling Aunty Sylvia about her illustrious ancestry.
-
Second one down is NI isn't it - Thursday 1st Dec 12.10am (Northern Ireland,Wales)
That's great! I hadn't noticed that Groom, thanks again. :D :D. And thank you also JAKnighton. I'm really looking forward to seeing the episode.
-
Good episode. I have East End ancestors as well so can relate to Danny's ancestors. I am related to the Kray Twins as well.
I prefer the original narrator, Mark Strong.
-
I enjoyed the episode - proper genealogy!
Haven't changed my opinion of Danny Dyer, though. Can't stand the man! :-X
-
At first he had a Cockney wide boy swagger but then when he came out of the church, after learning of his aristocratic roots, he seemed to have lost his wide boy swagger and had an upright calm almost regal air about him, which I thought that was quite funny but nice. He seemed to take it all on board in an unselfconscious way, not false or affected but just happy being in the moment.
He seemed like a straight forward bloke and genuinely enthusiastic about family research and wanting to learn more about historical events.
Good episode
-
I really enjoyed this episode, although I don't normally like Danny Dyer, however, I found him really endearing tonight - even if he was acting - and I can see that he would really have been surprised at when he found out who he was descended from. I know I was surprised when I found out I was descended from Royalty, even if it was only the Queen Consort of a King, rather than the king himself. I'm sure there must be millions of us with a direct line to Royalty or their friends.
Let's hope the rest of the series is as entertaining.
-
Was surprisingly enjoyable - and nice genealogy - not just a story about one quite recent ancestor made into a whole show.
Quite endearing that he didn't know about Thomas Cromwell or that Jane Seymour's ancestry was going to lead to Edward III et al.
Being Irish, I'm not a royalist but my interest in their history was one of the first clues that I loved genealogy.
-
I enjoyed the episode - proper genealogy!
Haven't changed my opinion of Danny Dyer, though. Can't stand the man! :-X
My thoughts exactly, can't stand him but he did seem surprised about what was uncovered.
Had to laugh at his wife running off with that family chart and ending up ripping it in two at the end.
-
Shows how many people with East End roots find their East End ancestors had family from East Anglia as the Gosnold family came from Suffolk, and Charles Buttivant was born 1804 in Norwich. Just looked him up on Anc.
-
I have read a report that 99% of British people are descended from Edward III? ...
It is an interesting theory but not sure how it can be true.
The population in Britain would have been about 3 million. From that the nobility, and their immediate circle, would have been just a few thousand?
Not sure that most people would have come into any contact with the aristocracy in their lifetime. Most people would have been peasant class agricultural labourers and would have married into their own kind.
-
I have read a report that 99% of British people are descended from Edward III? ...
It is an interesting theory but not sure how it can be true.
The population in Britain would have been about 3 million. From that the nobility, and their immediate circle, would have been just a few thousand?
Not sure that most people would have come into any contact with the aristocracy in their lifetime. Most people would have been peasant class agricultural labourers and would have married into their own kind.
A few thousand is more than enough in order for all their descendants, which would be in the millions, to have spread their genetic material in the time between the 1300s and now.
All it takes is one person of royal blood to have had a child with a commoner, and then that child's descendants would spread their DNA through the peasant class in many different families through the generations.
-
A few thousand is more than enough in order for all their descendants, which would be in the millions, to have spread their genetic material in the time between the 1300s and now.
All it takes is one person of royal blood to have had a child with a commoner, and then that child's descendants would spread their DNA through the peasant class in many different families through the generations.
But that still leaves millions of peasant families who had no contact at all with the few hundred who were of royal blood.
Even if some did mix across the class divide and lets face it those numbers would be small, that still leaves a huge majority of peasant class who did not mix with the tiny minority of land owning class. The sheer numbers of peasant class are too large to make any significant difference.
Some people might have royal heritage but I think most wouldn't?
-
I liked the way that the family were convinced that "Buttivant" was some variant of a French surname.
"Buttevant" is a town in Co. Cork, coincidentally given a charter by Edward III.
-
Do you think the Queen is telling people she is related to Danny Dyer👑
-
A few thousand is more than enough in order for all their descendants, which would be in the millions, to have spread their genetic material in the time between the 1300s and now.
All it takes is one person of royal blood to have had a child with a commoner, and then that child's descendants would spread their DNA through the peasant class in many different families through the generations.
But that still leaves millions of peasant families who had no contact at all with the few hundred who were of royal blood.
Even if some did mix across the class divide and lets face it those numbers would be small, that still leaves a huge majority of peasant class who did not mix with the tiny minority of land owning class. The sheer numbers of peasant class are too large to make any significant difference.
Some people might have royal heritage but I think most wouldn't?
You'd think they wouldn't, but most in fact do. It's genetically proven: http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/were-all-descended-from-charlemagne-and-related-to-each-other/
Keep in mind that all the families who existed at the time of Edward III, had descendants who intermarried with each other in the following 700 years. So it takes relatively few royal ancestors to be involved for them to eventually be the ancestors of all of us.
-
What a shame all the publicity meant we were not as shocked as Danny Dyer was..... but it certainly flags up issues around the "nature / nurture" debate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Interesting article:
https://thewildpeak.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/how-many-ancestors-do-you-have/
-
Was surprisingly enjoyable - and nice genealogy - not just a story about one quite recent ancestor made into a whole show.
Quite endearing that he didn't know about Thomas Cromwell or that Jane Seymour's ancestry was going to lead to Edward III et al.
Being Irish, I'm not a royalist but my interest in their history was one of the first clues that I loved genealogy.
Hello
If my memory serves me correct, didn't they go sideways, via a marriage to a Tollemache?
They didn't feature the research by the freelance Genealogist who suddenly produced a sheet going back a number of generations, from the GRO Certificate of Albert Buttivant of Whitechapel. This was the bit I really wanted to see for a few tips! However, Buttivant is a rare surname on Free BMD and a rare surname can really help, when tracing back your ancestry.
I'll watch again.
Regards Mark
-
It made me chuckle when, towards the end of the show, DD reckoned he was a "direct descendant" of Edward III, and had royal blood?!
Maybe related a few times removed, but hardly direct?!
-
I notice they missed out Edward II who ran away at Bannockburn & came to a bad ending following an encounter with the business end of a red-hot poker. Chest swells with pride! ;D
Skoosh.
-
I have read a report that 99% of British people are descended from Edward III? ...
It is an interesting theory but not sure how it can be true.
The population in Britain would have been about 3 million. From that the nobility, and their immediate circle, would have been just a few thousand?
Not sure that most people would have come into any contact with the aristocracy in their lifetime. Most people would have been peasant class agricultural labourers and would have married into their own kind.
A few thousand is more than enough in order for all their descendants, which would be in the millions, to have spread their genetic material in the time between the 1300s and now.
All it takes is one person of royal blood to have had a child with a commoner, and then that child's descendants would spread their DNA through the peasant class in many different families through the generations.
Alive at the same time of Edward III, would be all the Landowners, Barons or Lords of the Manors with their families, smaller farm owners or smallholders of land, plus others such as professions or traders, plus farmers, or peasants who farmed the lands of the landowners in each town!
The majority of us will descend directly from one of the others, besides Edward III.
Regards Mark
-
What a hoot! Gave me a good laugh
-
KGarrad,
Did I misunderstand it or miss something?
DD is directly descended from Edward 111.
His direct ancestor was Thomas Cromwell (15th gt grandfather if I recall)
DD is descended from his son Gregory Cromwell with Elizabeth Seymour. ( 14th great grandparents)
Elizabeth Seymour was the royal link and direct descendant of Edward 111
-
Hello
If my memory serves me correct, didn't they go sideways, via a marriage to a Tollemache?
They didn't feature the research by the freelance Genealogist who suddenly produced a sheet going back a number of generations, from the GRO Certificate of Albert Buttivant of Whitechapel. This was the bit I really wanted to see for a few tips! However, Buttivant is a rare surname on Free BMD and a rare surname can really help, when tracing back your ancestry.
I'll watch again.
Regards Mark
In answer to anne_p, I think I need to see this program again, because they went sideways at one point, via a sister, of probably Tollemache?
Found this again now, re Cromwell ...
https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Cromwell-Descendants-12
Regards Mark
EDIT: NOT Sister, but Marriage of Robert Gosnold = Anne Tollemache
-
They didn't feature the research by the freelance Genealogist who suddenly produced a sheet going back a number of generations, from the GRO Certificate of Albert Buttivant of Whitechapel. This was the bit I really wanted to see for a few tips! However, Buttivant is a rare surname on Free BMD and a rare surname can really help, when tracing back your ancestry.
Regards Mark
In answer to anne_p, I think I need to see this program again, because they went sideways at one point, via a sister, of probably Tollemache?
Found this again now, re Cromwell ...
https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Cromwell-Descendants-12
Regards Mark
The above link makes it easy to follow. Thanks Mark.
I too was disappointed by the research they did not follow carefully, in favour of plenty of selfie footage!!
But the Tollemache sister who married the civil war Royalist, was the grand daughter ( ??? ) of Gregory Cromwell who married Jane Seymour's sister, which is how it tracks back through the Percys to the Plantagenets and Norman conquest.
-
I need to watch it back too but I think that once they worked out that DD ancestor was Robert Gosnold, Robert became the direct the link to the Tollemache family.
The current Tollmarche man showed DD around the church and showed him the line of ancestry
He pointed out their shared ancestral grandmother who was one of the Tollemache women but I can't remember her name.
-
As a direct descendent of Thomas Cromwell's sister Katherine...
Oh no! I'm cousins with Danny Dyer!
And sadly I've not found any royalty in my line to compensate for it!!
-
Hi
I was slightly wrong when I said sideways via sister of Tollemache to get to Cromwell.
Robert Gosnold was the son of Robert Gosnold and Anne Tollemache.
The program narrator then states that Anne Tollemache was Danny Dyer's 11 X Gt. Grandmother.
The next diagram shows Anne Tollemache to be the daughter of Lionel Tollemache.
Lionel Tollemache was married to Catherine Cromwell.
It has gone sideways at one of Dyer's Gt. Grandmothers to get to the Cromwell line, rather than an all male - male - male, descent route.
Mark
-
I looked back.
The story started with Danny Dyers ggg grandparents :
Albert Buttivant and Ann Howcutt
Albert was the son of
Charles Buttivant and Hannah Wing
Charles was the son of
James Buttivant and Ann Gosnald (Switches to maternal line)
Ann Gosnold
ErrorSPAM
REPORT THIS POST AS SPAM (Use 'Report to Moderator'). DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS IN THIS POST. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS PERSON.
]was the daughter of [/color]
Charles Gosnold
ErrorSPAM
REPORT THIS POST AS SPAM (Use 'Report to Moderator'). DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS IN THIS POST. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS PERSON.
] and Sarah French
Charles was the son of[/color]
Tendring Gosnold
ErrorSPAM
REPORT THIS POST AS SPAM (Use 'Report to Moderator'). DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS IN THIS POST. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS PERSON.
]and Ann Reynolds
Tendring was the son of [/color]
Walter Gosnold
ErrorSPAM
REPORT THIS POST AS SPAM (Use 'Report to Moderator'). DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS IN THIS POST. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS PERSON.
]and Elizabeth ( Unk)
Walter was the son of[/color]
Lionel Gosnold
ErrorSPAM
REPORT THIS POST AS SPAM (Use 'Report to Moderator'). DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS IN THIS POST. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS PERSON.
]and Rebecca Hardy
Lionel was the son of[/color]
Robert Gosnold V1
ErrorSPAM
REPORT THIS POST AS SPAM (Use 'Report to Moderator'). DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS IN THIS POST. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS PERSON.
]and Dorothy Jegon
Robert V1 was the son of[/color]
ErrorSPAM
REPORT THIS POST AS SPAM (Use 'Report to Moderator'). DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS IN THIS POST. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS PERSON.
]Robert V and Anne Tollemache [/color]( Switches to maternal line)
Anne was the daughter of
ErrorSPAM
REPORT THIS POST AS SPAM (Use 'Report to Moderator'). DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS IN THIS POST. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS PERSON.
]Lionel Tollemach and[color=blue[/color]] Catherine Cromwell[/color] ( Switches to maternal line)
Catherine was the daughter of
Lord Henry Cromwell and and Mary Paulet
Lord Henry was the son of
Gregory Cromwell and Elizabeth Seymour
Made a mess of highlight but, you get the drift!
-
It has gone sideways at one of Dyer's Gt Grandmothers to get to the Cromwell line, rather than an all male - male - male, descent route.
Mark - does that make it less of a link. If it weren't for the females there would be no link at all, so in my eyes going through the female or male line still means he is directly related to Edward III.
-
What a shame all the publicity meant we were not as shocked as Danny Dyer was
That's why I deliberately didn't read any of the publicity, I wanted what they found to be new to me.
-
I'm interested in the comment made earlier in this thread that 99% of us are probably related to Edward 3rd.
Those thoughts were running through my mind whilst watching - if you go back 22 generations (or however many it was) surely you'd have so many great grandparents that you could populate a modern city? I tried to do the maths but I'm no Carol Vorderman!!! :D So is it really that unusual?
Believe it or believe it or not, but I've never come across Danny Dyer before (don't watch Eastenders as I like to leave my wrists unslit!) and I just couldn't make him out. Surely, he was taking the p--s and just redoing his Eastenders role? Do people really act like that these days? I think WDYTYA may have been the butt of a joke here!
Otherwise, it was quite interesting but I have to admit that my attention was diverted from the genealogy by his Del-boy antics.
-
Hi
I was slightly wrong when I said sideways via sister of Tollemache to get to Cromwell.
Robert Gosnold was the son of Robert Gosnold and Anne Tollemache.
The program narrator then states that Anne Tollemache was Danny Dyer's 11 X Gt. Grandmother.
The next diagram shows Anne Tollemache to be the daughter of Lionel Tollemache.
Lionel Tollemache was married to Catherine Cromwell.
It has gone sideways at one of Dyer's Gt Grandmothers to get to the Cromwell line, rather than an all male - male - male, descent route.
Surely a line is direct whether through the male or female line. It would be a very old fashioned idea to think the female line "sideways" or indirect. I thought the program was quite clear about the direct line back to Cromwell, Edward III et al
Steve
Steve
-
I thought it made for very interesting and enjoyable TV, - but I was disappointed that the DYER's weren't followed at all! They certainly didn't concentrate on the direct male lines, did they? It jumped about sideways a lot, - but I do this too when I get stuck...
I assume that the professional researchers on the programme just look until they find a name of interest, - and then just persue that line?
Romilly.
-
Jillruss, the maths are that you have 8 Great Grandparents. (mine are born in late 1800s)
They have 64 Great Grandparents (late 1700s)
They have 512 Great Grandparents (very late 1600s)
They have 4,000 Great Grandparents (early 1600s)
THey have 33,000 Great Grandparents (late 1400s)
They have just over a quarter of a million Great Grandparents (late 1300s)
They have just over two million Great Grandparents (c1300 for me).
So yes, by the time you get that far back, you have more ancestors than were alive in this country at that time. Boom!
-
It has gone sideways at one of Dyer's Gt Grandmothers to get to the Cromwell line, rather than an all male - male - male, descent route.
Why is the male line considered the direct line, surely that is the side of the family where you can't be 100% sure? You can be fairly sure of the mother but the father may or may not be right! :D :D
-
I thought it made for very interesting and enjoyable TV, - but I was disappointed that the DYER's weren't followed at all! They certainly didn't concentrate on the direct male lines, did they? It jumped about sideways a lot, - but I do this too when I get stuck...
I assume that the professional researchers on the programme just look until they find a name of interest, - and then just persue that line?
Romilly.
It's a prgramme and is about telling a story
I did like it because it was reasonably far back unlike some in the past which the person could have easily found if they had really been bothered
-
It has gone sideways at one of Dyer's Gt Grandmothers to get to the Cromwell line, rather than an all male - male - male, descent route.
Why is the male line considered the direct line, surely that is the side of the family where you can't be 100% sure? You can be fairly sure of the mother but the father may or may not be right! :D :D
It made me chuckle when, towards the end of the show, DD reckoned he was a "direct descendant" of Edward III, and had royal blood?!
Maybe related a few times removed, but hardly direct?!
OK! Humble Pie time :-[
I was wrong. :(
Maybe my views of DD coloured my judgement? ;D ;D
-
Jillruss, the maths are that you have 8 Great Grandparents. (mine are born in late 1800s)
They have 64 Great Grandparents (late 1700s)
They have 512 Great Grandparents (very late 1600s)
They have 4,000 Great Grandparents (early 1600s)
THey have 33,000 Great Grandparents (late 1400s)
They have just over a quarter of a million Great Grandparents (late 1300s)
They have just over two million Great Grandparents (c1300 for me).
So yes, by the time you get that far back, you have more ancestors than were alive in this country at that time. Boom!
I did the maths! If I've got it right, we all have 8,388,608 22xgreat grandparents! So -
1. we probably are all descended from some form of royalty (which, as a Republican, makes me want to spit! ;)) and
2. As TheNineteenth rightly said, there probably weren't that many people in the country then, so does that make us all banjo playing, interbred Hillbillies? (albeit, royal hillbillies!)
It does rather make this 'related to royalty' bee in the bonnet that the makers of WDYTYA seem to have rather silly and a bit 'done to death' over the different series. I'd much rather hear about closer ancestors.
Incidentally, does anyone else agree with me that Mr Dyer shouldn't have glibly told Aunt Silvie about the Mary Ann/baby episode? She looked visibly upset but he just ploughed on anyway.
-
It has gone sideways at one of Dyer's Gt Grandmothers to get to the Cromwell line, rather than an all male - male - male, descent route.
Mark - does that make it less of a link. If it weren't for the females there would be no link at all, so in my eyes going through the female or male line still means he is directly related to Edward III.
Sorry Lizzie
In no way did I mean to make less of the female role in our descent.
I've been trying to trace my descent through the male (family name) side, but if I was to trace back from my 2 X Gt. Grandmother, family talk says it goes back 100s of years to the Normans.
Even an 1838 Wedding newspaper notice of a marriage, I found very recently, says her father was "of Old, in this County".
So Lizzy, perhaps I should stop my male line hunt, in the late 18th Century and concentrate on the descent via my two times Gt. Grandmother instead!
I'm more than happy to look in depth, back from my 2 X Gt. Grandmother, as it might be a lot more exciting and interesting!
Kind regards Mark
-
What a shame all the publicity meant we were not as shocked as Danny Dyer was
That's why I deliberately didn't read any of the publicity, I wanted what they found to be new to me.
Fair comment, but there were lots of TV trailers that were hard to miss. :)
-
Believe it or believe it or not, but I've never come across Danny Dyer before (don't watch Eastenders as I like to leave my wrists unslit!) and I just couldn't make him out. Surely, he was taking the p--s and just redoing his Eastenders role? Do people really act like that these days? I think WDYTYA may have been the butt of a joke here!
Otherwise, it was quite interesting but I have to admit that my attention was diverted from the genealogy by his Del-boy antics.
My OH often works with DD, and says that what you saw in the Prog is exactly how he is in real life, - nothing put on at all. I thought it was nice that he seemed to be so interested in it all, - so many of the subjects in WDYTYA don't seem to be at all.
Romilly.
-
Quoted from MARK: "Sorry Lizzie, In no way did I mean to make less of the female role in our descent.
I've been trying to trace my descent through the male (family name) side, but if I was to trace back from my 2 X Gt. Grandmother, family talk says it goes back 100s of years to the Normans.
Even an 1838 wedding newspaper notice of the marriage, I found very recently, says her father was "of Old, in this County".
So Lizzy, perhaps I should stop my male line hunt, in the late 18th Century and concentrate on the descent via my two times Gt. Grandmother instead!
I'm more than happy to look in depth, back from my 2 X Gt. Grandmother, as it might be a lot more exciting and interesting!"
Kind regards Mark [/quote]
Go for it double quick Mark, and please do keep us in the loop. :D
-
Thanks LizzyW and mowsehowse
If the lineage back from the father, of my 2 X Gt. Grandmother, counts as "direct" I definitely will try and trace it back. As I've been absolutely stuck on my (male family name) line for about 18 years.
I'm a commoner, no status, or celebrity!
Regards Mark
Edit: of Old, is a place called Old, so might not be my family member rumoured with a history.
-
Believe it or believe it or not, but I've never come across Danny Dyer before (don't watch Eastenders as I like to leave my wrists unslit!) and I just couldn't make him out. Surely, he was taking the p--s and just redoing his Eastenders role? Do people really act like that these days? I think WDYTYA may have been the butt of a joke here!
Otherwise, it was quite interesting but I have to admit that my attention was diverted from the genealogy by his Del-boy antics.
My OH often works with DD, and says that what you saw in the Prog is exactly how he is in real life, - nothing put on at all. I thought it was nice that he seemed to be so interested in it all, - so many of the subjects in WDYTYA don't seem to be at all.
Romilly.
Fair enough, but I beg to differ about his attitude to it all. I thought it was less interest and more taking the mickey.
-
Quite right too! Was the paternity of Edward III not somewhat in doubt?
Skoosh.
-
I thought he was geniuinely interested, although I got the impression it hadn't all sunk in. I don't think it would all sink in for me if all my research was presented to me and I hadn't seen it before. No matter who your ancestors are I reckon it would be a bit much to take in all at once. I mean what I know so far about mine I have uncovered gradually over 17 years and even then I have "oh wow really" moments.
Did I misread? did someone say he wasn't directly descended from Edward III? he was his 22nd grt grandfather, to me that is a direct ancestor. Indirect would be grt aunts and uncles etc.
I also think the number of 22grt grandparents we have will be complicated by the likelihood of cousins or second cousin marrying at some point over 22 generations making some grt grandparents related twice over, or more.
I am jealous though, would love to know who my 20xgrt grandparents were.
-
Even an 1838 Wedding newspaper notice of a marriage, I found very recently, says her father was "of Old, in this County".
Old, is a village and civil parish in the Daventry district of the county of Northamptonshire, England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old,_Northamptonshire
-
Mark,
Was that a joke about 'of Old' or are you not aware of Old in Daventry?
Snap. posted anyway.
-
An interesting episode but didn't know DD at all.
Some of the family tree information was too quickly passed over for my liking though.
Forgive my ignorance but does this mean that we are all related to one another here in England. Am I related to my husband other than through our marriage?
Judy
-
Even an 1838 Wedding newspaper notice of a marriage, I found very recently, says her father was "of Old, in this County".
Old, is a village and civil parish in the Daventry district of the county of Northamptonshire, England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old,_Northamptonshire
Thank you.
Oh dear, I was not aware of a place called Old. I hadn't done anything with this yet.
I might be barking up the wrong tree, or down the wrong line!
Anyway, I'll say no more, as thread is about Dyer.
Regards Mark
-
Would love to know what Lord Tim Tollemache thought about the whole idea of being related to DD ;) Helmingham Hall and gardens look absolutely stunning on their website, I've never been but would like to visit some day. Perhaps DD will be invited back for afternoon tea.
-
An interesting episode but didn't know DD at all.
Some of the family tree information was too quickly passed over for my liking though.
Forgive my ignorance but does this mean that we are all related to one another here in England. Am I related to my husband other than through our marriage?
Judy
We are all related somewhere along the line but could easily be 30th or 40th great grandparents we share or even further back so for most people records wouldn't allow us to go back far enough to find the link. However when a family has lived in a rural area over a few centuries it is common to find cousin's or second cousins marrying. When I was at school (village school) I was the only one in the class who wasn't related to at least one other classmate.
-
Some of the family tree information was too quickly passed over for my liking though.
The freelance researcher Laura Berry Genealogist suddenly appeared with a sheet of paper that went back a number of generations and much hard work, that she (and possibly her team) did, went unfeatured.
One moment they were discussing Albert Buttivant and Whitechapel of the 1850s, his parents, then suddenly this long list appeared, back to the Robert Gosnold marriage with Anne Tollemache.
The Lord was very polite and friendly, but seemed rather amused, I felt.
Regards Mark
-
When I was at school (village school) I was the only one in the class who wasn't related to at least one other classmate.
Does this mean you were top of the phorm?
-
When I was at school (village school) I was the only one in the class who wasn't related to at least one other classmate.
Does this mean you were top of the phorm?
No it meant that I was the class weirdo who was regularly told she wasn't wanted. Told to go back where I came from, called interloper etc. On a plus side it sowed the seeds of wanting to know where I did come from.
-
I enjoyed the episode, i wander how many did what i do a lot during these and whip over to ancestry or wherever and have a search for the ancestor. I ended up on some Buttivant trees and then Gosnard? ones most had not got back far, i thought to myself how many of these tree owners are watching this and having a blue fit right now. I will go back on at somepoint and see if any have been updated. what very lucky people, can't imagine how excited i would be if i was watching a wdytya one day and it was one of my lines featured.
-
I always enjoy the episodes where the celebrities show real excitement or emotion at the discoveries. I'd never heard of Danny Dyer, but lived each stage of his journey with him. Hope the rest of the series lives up to this strong opener.
-
Forgive my ignorance but does this mean that we are all related to one another here in England. Am I related to my husband other than through our marriage?
Every single one of us shares at least one common ancestor who lived between est. 200,000 and 3,000 years ago and who was genetically similar to us. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be a species...
And the Most Recent Common Ancestor of all native European populations probably lived in mediaeval times... so yes, you and your husband and I are all related within recorded history.
Whether we can document it is another matter ;)
I was out on Thurs and missed WDYTYA but going to give it a go on iPlayer the night.
-
I really enjoyed this episode. He was interested in all of his ancestors and his show had a bit of everything. It also showed Danny doing some actual research which, recently, is not shown on the show. A great start to the series - looking forward to the next episode.
-
Something that no-one seems to have commented on when discussing the likelihood of descent from royalty is that many of the children recorded as the child of a King were in fact borne by his mistress(es). So shifting to the female line (the King's wife and HER ancestors) may not be correct. And is not a feature of ROYAL families only. I know we like to trust hdytya to take such things into account but it is food for thought.
-
Danny Dyer has Royal blood. So does most of the British population if you go back far enough. Dyer is still a working class East Londoner.
As others say, we must all be distantly related. I think British people and Asian people have a common ancestor if we go back far enough. We all reportedly descend from African tribes.
-
We're all related to each other, we're all inbred, and we've all got royal blood. Probably. But unlike Lord Danny of Dyer, most of us can't prove it.
My ancestors are English all the way, but somewhat stubbornly won't let me get back before the mid 1700s. All of them. All it takes though is a link to a family like the Tollemaches and suddenly your family is all there, well-documented back to 1066 and beyond.
-
I loved this episode.
Haven't watched EastEnders since Ange left the Queen Vic ( Crikey that was 1988), so don't really know much about Danny Dyer, although I knew who he was.
However I found him to be an entertaining subject who seemed to be genuinely stunned and moved by all that was found. His face when Thomas Cromwell and then Edward III's names came into the frame was a picture! ;D
My OH who has absolutely no interest in genealogy and who normally suffers quietly watching WDYTYA with me, roared with laughter all through the programme and announced it was the best episode he'd ever watched.
Only negative :-\ like Jillruss I didn't think the "reveal" of information to old Auntie Sylvie regarding her mother,the poor baby and her criminal record , was handled very well. Surely they should've informed the old lady in private off-camera and then recorded Danny speaking to her afterwards.
Back to being positive - a fab start to the new series. Hope the rest are of the same standard.
Looby :)
-
I've just watched the show on catch up and enjoyed it.
I would have liked to have seen a bit more on the generations that linked his gt gt gt grandfather with the Gosnolds. I think there may have been some interesting stories there but I suppose in Mr Dyer's case, there was a surfeit of interesting stories.
-
It only took me a minute or two to get back to the Gosnold name.
Albert's father Charles came from Norwich, and his baptism (image on Ancestry) gives his mother's maiden name.
-
It seems I'm in a minority as I really didn't enjoy this episode at all, in fact it probably rates in my bottom 2 or 3 of all time. To me it just felt as if finding a link to money & title was the program makers sole objective from the outset. I don't watch East Enders so I wouldn't have known Danny Dyer if I tripped over him, but I'm afraid I found him extremely irritating throughout. Oh well, roll on next week!
-
A diverse collection of comments here which is an excellent result. It makes you think down other routes.
All in all I think it was a satisfactory programme and look forward to the next one.
I thought the Lord Tollemache was such a gracious figure. All due respect to him.
Judy
-
It only took me a minute or two to get back to the Gosnold name.
Albert's father Charles came from Norwich, and his baptism (image on Ancestry) gives his mother's maiden name.
Oh ok. Thanks. For some reason I thought there were more.
-
Nice to see that Lords still trigger an involuntary forelock-tugging reflex from the lower orders, what? ;D
Skoosh.
-
This 90 Second Edit of the DD Episode is quite funny:
https://www.joe.co.uk/entertainment/video-the-best-moments-from-danny-dyer-on-who-do-you-think-you-are/99536
Romilly ;D
-
Nice to know that Danny Dyer has ancestors from Norwich. Even though the Gosnold family originated in Suffolk then moved to Norwich. I also have a Norwich born ancestor who moved to the East End in search of work.
I watch EE and while Dyer is the typical Cockney hardman actor, he seems keen on genealogy and you see their different side on WDYTYA.
-
Usually quite interesting.
-
Nice to see that Lords still trigger an involuntary forelock-tugging reflex from the lower orders, what? ;D
Skoosh.
And why not?
Judy
-
I admit I had a little chuckle when, after having said about French ancestry earlier in the program, the big scroll at the end showed that one of his ancestors was Sarah FRENCH. That sounds more like it!
I'm sure I'm descended from royalty at some point but at the moment I seem to be more or less peasants all the way. In fact, I'm not so much interested in royalty as having the vague aspiration to find patronymics in one of my Welsh lines, that would oddly make me happy!
-
I enjoyed this episode for once. He didn't seem at all false to me. I have supposed descendancy from Edward II , oh dear skoosh I have said it publicly .
-
Unless there was a non paternal event in the 22 generations, then Danny Dyer is a proven direct descendent. Sorry I am being cynical again. ;D The further back we trace rellies, the more chance of a non paternal event somewhere.
-
Is "non paternal event" an accepted phrase or have you made it up? ;)
-
No it is a phrase. Here is a Wikipedia link. Non paternal or non paternity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-paternity_event
-
Is "non paternal event" an accepted phrase or have you made it up? ;)
As the product of a long line of "non paternal events" I love it!
-
Non paternal event is my phrase of the week. Thanks for that, Coombs.
-
A good discussion on today's edition of "More or Less" (Radio 4, now available on iPlayer Radio), regarding the statistical probability of being descended from Edward III.
If you have UK ancestry, the chances are heavily in favour of you having him as a direct ancestor.
The problem is having documentation of it. DD was extremely lucky on that front.
-
A good discussion on today's edition of "More or Less" (Radio 4, now available on iPlayer Radio), regarding the statistical probability of being descended from Edward III.
If you have UK ancestry, the chances are heavily in favour of you having him as a direct ancestor.
I still do not understand how it is possible :-\.
For this to be true, his children and their descendants would have had to have had a lot of marriage/relations with commoners.
The approx population of the UK in the 14th century was 3.5 million, the majority of people would have been some kind of agricultural labourer.
How likely is it that over the centuries the aristocracy married into, or even met in person, the peasantry?
The "statistics" do not seem to take into account that people married within their own social class and did so for many centuries
-
A good discussion on today's edition of "More or Less" (Radio 4, now available on iPlayer Radio), regarding the statistical probability of being descended from Edward III.
If you have UK ancestry, the chances are heavily in favour of you having him as a direct ancestor.
I still do not understand how it is possible :-\.
For this to be true, his children and their descendants would have had to have had a lot of marriage/relations with commoners.
The approx population of the UK in the 14th century was 3.5 million, the majority of people would have been some kind of agricultural labourer.
How likely is it that over the centuries the aristocracy married into, or even met in person, the peasantry?
Just from my own family history research, it is apparant just how easy it was to slide down the social scale... just take a few early deaths/bankruptcies, etc... and see what happened to the next generations.
Romilly.
-
Just from my own family history research, it is apparant just how easy it was to slide down the social scale... just take a few early deaths/bankruptcies, etc... and see what happened to the next generations.
Romilly.
But how often did anyone manage to breach the class divide?
If you have millions of peasant/working class and a few thousand aristocracy and they rarely had any contact with each other, then I can't see it
The statistics do not seem to take into account rigid class divisions and that the separate classes were marrying into their own kind and that they rarely intermarried. These two demographics mostly grew separately
-
A good discussion on today's edition of "More or Less" (Radio 4, now available on iPlayer Radio), regarding the statistical probability of being descended from Edward III.
If you have UK ancestry, the chances are heavily in favour of you having him as a direct ancestor.
I still do not understand how it is possible :-\.
For this to be true, his children and their descendants would have had to have had a lot of marriage/relations with commoners.
The approx population of the UK in the 14th century was 3.5 million, the majority of people would have been some kind of agricultural labourer.
How likely is it that over the centuries the aristocracy married into, or even met in person, the peasantry?
Before I answer this I want to make clear that to the best of my knowledge I have no link to royalty.
It is possible, firstly because of illigitimate births. Secondly you have to consider how many generations back from today's generation and the laws of primagenature. so it's a gradual process rather than a large number of titled people marrying an ag lab. Say 20 generations back an aristocrat has 4 sons. All his sons will benefit from a good education etc from their upbringinging but only the oldest son would inherit the title, estate (means to continue to prosper). The younger sons would likely have money and their education but have a slightly less prosperous start in adult life potentially ending up well off but not as well off as their oldest sibling. This pattern would continue with the youngest son of the youngest son and so on. With each generation there is a high chance they would become less prosperous and less attractive as a marriage proposition to the aristocracy. It became common for the youngest son of middle ranking noblemen to enter the ministery which would increase the chances of them marrying one of the middle rather than the upper classes the continue the pattern on down the generations. Then add in those who ended up stripped of their estates, for example in the Civil war or lost their money to gambling debts it becomes more and more likely that the so many x grt grandson or daughter of a high ranking noble man marries a miner, ag lab or so on.
-
Just from my own family history research, it is apparant just how easy it was to slide down the social scale... just take a few early deaths/bankruptcies, etc... and see what happened to the next generations. Romilly.
Wasn't that the point of starting the programme by focusing on the Workhouse??
-
Before I answer this I want to make clear that to the best of my knowledge I have no link to royalty.
It is possible, firstly because of illigitimate births. Secondly you have to consider how many generations back from today's generation and the laws of primagenature. so it's a gradual process rather than a large number of titled people marrying an ag lab. Say 20 generations back an aristocrat has 4 sons. All his sons will benefit from a good education etc from their upbringinging but only the oldest son would inherit the title, estate (means to continue to prosper). The younger sons would likely have money and their education but have a slightly less prosperous start in adult life potentially ending up well off but not as well off as their oldest sibling. This pattern would continue with the youngest son of the youngest son and so on. With each generation there is a high chance they would become less prosperous and less attractive as a marriage proposition to the aristocracy. It became common for the youngest son of middle ranking noblemen to enter the ministery which would increase the chances of them marrying one of the middle rather than the upper classes the continue the pattern on down the generations. Then add in those who ended up stripped of their estates, for example in the Civil war or lost their money to gambling debts it becomes more and more likely that the so many x grt grandson or daughter of a high ranking noble man marries a miner, ag lab or so on.
I could understand this point if the numbers of the two social classes was equal, but it wasn't
If you have millions of peasants on the one hand and a few thousand aristocrats on the other, that a few aristocrats married a few peasants does not alter the fact that you are still left with millions of peasants who didn't marry into any aristocracy.
In any given year, say a half dozen aristocrats married into the peasant class. This is only a fraction of peasant class who have aristocracy in their family in that year
It is the huge numbers of peasant/working class compared to the very small numbers of aristocratic class. There was just too many commoners for them to marry into to make a big difference?
-
Before I answer this I want to make clear that to the best of my knowledge I have no link to royalty.
It is possible, firstly because of illigitimate births. Secondly you have to consider how many generations back from today's generation and the laws of primagenature. so it's a gradual process rather than a large number of titled people marrying an ag lab. Say 20 generations back an aristocrat has 4 sons. All his sons will benefit from a good education etc from their upbringinging but only the oldest son would inherit the title, estate (means to continue to prosper). The younger sons would likely have money and their education but have a slightly less prosperous start in adult life potentially ending up well off but not as well off as their oldest sibling. This pattern would continue with the youngest son of the youngest son and so on. With each generation there is a high chance they would become less prosperous and less attractive as a marriage proposition to the aristocracy. It became common for the youngest son of middle ranking noblemen to enter the ministery which would increase the chances of them marrying one of the middle rather than the upper classes the continue the pattern on down the generations. Then add in those who ended up stripped of their estates, for example in the Civil war or lost their money to gambling debts it becomes more and more likely that the so many x grt grandson or daughter of a high ranking noble man marries a miner, ag lab or so on.
I could understand this point if the numbers of the two social classes was equal, but it wasn't
If you have millions of peasants on the one hand and a few thousand aristocrats on the other, that a few aristocrats married a few peasants does not alter the fact that you are still left with millions of peasants who didn't marry into any aristocracy.
In any given year, say a half dozen aristocrats married into the peasant class. This is only a fraction of peasant class who have aristocracy in their family in that year
It is the huge numbers of peasant/working class compared to the very small numbers of aristocratic class. There was just too many commoners for them to marry into to make a big difference?
I'm sorry but you seem to have understood what I said. I was not talking of a high ranking aristocrat marrying a peasant. Although there would have been occasions of sudden loss of status it is mostly a gradual loss of status of the younger siblings and you are statistically more likely to be a younger sibling than the oldest. Edward III for example died the equivalent of about 15 generations ago so someone losing status over 5 generations still has 20 generations of descendents living today. It's not the children of Edward iii (in the most part anyway) marrying peasants of the day that leads to averge joe being of roayl descent but the descendants of these children marrying teh descendants of these peasants.
-
Just to look at it from a different angle, if you trace back about 20 generations you would have around a million direct ancestors, more or less according to the degree of intermarrying of cousins, etc. That would have been something like a quarter of the entire population. (rough estimates)
-
Just to look at it from a different angle, if you trace back about 20 generations you would have around a million direct ancestors, more or less according to the degree of intermarrying of cousins, etc. That would have been something like a quarter of the entire population. (rough estimates)
People usually married within their own class and often to their "cousins".
As you go back your tree grows and gets to a wide point, but then it starts to narrow back in again. This is due to Pedigree Collapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse
-
Historians have traced 245 great great grandchildren of Edward. There were an average of 3 surviving descendants of each line per generation. They were more wealthy than average, so not too many worries about starvation...
The chap on More or Less worked out that by the late 1500s, there would be about 20,000 descendants, so one in every 200 people in England was a descendant of Edward III.
Each of us in the present day would have around 15,000 ancestors who were alive in the late 1500s. That gives odds of about 75-1 on that we are descended from Edward.
-
I have some landowner ancestors whose children went from yeomen to general labourers. Probably not making enough money so ended up sliding down the social scale.
King Edward III was 22 generations ago and we have about 8 million 22 times great grandparents although we probably are inbred that far back which cuts down the number but even so, his descendants dispersed across the UK and the number multiplied and multiplied into hundreds of thousands of people a few hundred years down the line. So many of us (whether proven or not) will have King Edward III as a direct ancestor.
-
Interesting article here:
https://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/EdwardIIIDescent.php
Which concludes:
Conclusion: there is an extremely high probabilty that a modern English person with predominantly English ancestry descends from Edward III, at a very minimum over 99%, and more likely very close to 100%. The number of descendants of Edward III must therefore include nearly all of the population of England, and probably much of the populations of the rest of the UK and Eire, as well as many millions in the USA, former British colonies and Europe, so 100 million seems a conservative estimate. Documenting one's own descent from Edward III is, however, another matter!
-
I've just managed to catch up on this first programme, recorded it as I knew I couldn't watch it at the time
Firstly, I'd never even heard of Danny Dyer, but just saw a sort of "cheekie chappie", who seemed very full of himself. The Intro informed me he was linked with "Eastenders" - which I also never have seen.
He seemed to be very bouncy, and obviously had some interest - "Family stories" of French ancestry etc, so was potentially an interested and interesting choice.
As others have mentioned, he didn't really seem to grasp some points, and the programme did bop about a lot. Relationships that were indirect seemed to be adopted as direct lines, and at times one cringed a little.... I'm not sure, as one other said, that D.D. was "having a laugh" at WDYTYA?, but felt at times WDYTYA? might have been having a chuckle at D.D.'s expense!
-But I'm very glad to see the movement back along generations, instead of focussing on someone about grandparent level who should have had a fairly well-known story to the subject, and really glad to see WDYTYA? back on our screens.
Interesting article on ancestry and possibilities of tree collapse, well worth reading.
(I'm pretty sure that my "mob" over the centuries will have differed little from the more recent generations I know about fairly well.... and I'm certain as anyone can be that there's no royal or even noble blood anywhere in my ancestry. Farmers, occasionally described as Yeomen, husbandmen, weavers, millers, innkeepers, brewers, craftsmen, joiners, carpenters, shipwrights, small tradesmen, all those sorts of things ...... nope, can't see a prince charming popping round for a "bit of rough" with the carpenter's daughter, somehow.)
-
It is possible, firstly because of illigitimate births. Secondly you have to consider how many generations back from today's generation and the laws of primagenature. so it's a gradual process rather than a large number of titled people marrying an ag lab. Say 20 generations back an aristocrat has 4 sons. All his sons will benefit from a good education etc from their upbringinging but only the oldest son would inherit the title, estate (means to continue to prosper). The younger sons would likely have money and their education but have a slightly less prosperous start in adult life potentially ending up well off but not as well off as their oldest sibling. This pattern would continue with the youngest son of the youngest son and so on. With each generation there is a high chance they would become less prosperous and less attractive as a marriage proposition to the aristocracy. It became common for the youngest son of middle ranking noblemen to enter the ministery which would increase the chances of them marrying one of the middle rather than the upper classes the continue the pattern on down the generations. Then add in those who ended up stripped of their estates, for example in the Civil war or lost their money to gambling debts it becomes more and more likely that the so many x grt grandson or daughter of a high ranking noble man marries a miner, ag lab or so on.
That's a good way of explaining it. And the Danny Dyer episode was a good example - if I remember rightly, nobody suddenly lost their wealth. Another way of looking at it - we have millions of ancestors from the time of Edward III, not all of them are nobility, it only takes one. Chances are, Edward III is our ancestor on more than one line, but proving it is a different matter.
Just for the record, I've not found a link from my family to royalty either, but given my very English ancestry, I'm sure there must be a connection... just haven't found it yet!
-
The chap on More or Less worked out that by the late 1500s, there would be about 20,000 descendants, so one in every 200 people in England was a descendant of Edward III.
Each of us in the present day would have around 15,000 ancestors who were alive in the late 1500s. That gives odds of about 75-1 on that we are descended from Edward.
I'm going to guess that that calculation will be based on an assumption that anyone of the 1500 population is equally likely to be our ancestor.
What Claire, I think it was, is saying is that assumption is false because the subsets of 1500 nobles and non-nobles produce 3 distinct sets of 2016 population I.e. full noble, full common and hybrid noble-common and that the full common subset will far outweigh the other two
-
What was "English" about Edward III? answers on a very small postcard please! ;D
Skoosh.
-
Good one .... or you could write it on the rear of the stamp?
-
I'm going to guess that that calculation will be based on an assumption that anyone of the 1500 population is equally likely to be our ancestor.
The point is that even then, not all the 20,000 descendants would be considered royal, or even noble. There certainly wasn't a castle or a fancy house for each of those 20,000.
Some of them may have had a few quid more than the average, but their line may have fallen from favour, gone broke, or worse. Each generation, the "royal" blood would be diluted.
The majority of those 20,000 would have to be earning a living like the rest of the population, and would be looking to the same pool of possible spouses. In the programme, we saw mention of Ann Gosnold marrying James Buttivant, a weaver.
-
I'm going to guess that that calculation will be based on an assumption that anyone of the 1500 population is equally likely to be our ancestor.
The point is that even then, not all the 20,000 descendants would be considered royal, or even noble. There certainly wasn't a castle or a fancy house for each of those 20,000.
Some of them may have had a few quid more than the average, but their line may have fallen from favour, gone broke, or worse. Each generation, the "royal" blood would be diluted.
The majority of those 20,000 would have to be earning a living like the rest of the population, and would be looking to the same pool of possible spouses. In the programme, we saw mention of Ann Gosnold marrying James Buttivant, a weaver.
Exactly. Allegedly my Titshall line harks back to a Lord of the manor of Herringfleet in Suffolk. Someone with the surname was Lord of the manor. Titshall is a rare surname as well. My Titshall's were millers in the 1700s, one was a churchwarden. So if they do descend from a lord then they would have slipped down the scale. I have ancestors who were landowners whose children ended up as yeomen or tenant farmers and whose grandchildren ended up as labourers.
Most Brits will descend from royalty whether we can prove it or not. And Danny Dyer is no less the working class person he is just because a very distant ancestor 22 generations back was King Edward III.
-
This so-called "Royalty" was descended from the bastard of a brigand & a tanner's daughter!
Skoosh.
-
This so-called "Royalty" was descended from the bastard of a brigand & a tanner's daughter!
Skoosh.
My Aunt's line back to royalty descends from a somewhat randy CofE vicar and his teenage mistress. :D They had seven children together while he was still married, albeit eventually officially separated. She appears to have been about 15 when the first child was born but the parish registers for the particular parish were stolen from the church in the 1950s. The vicar came from a somewhat infamous and dysfunctional family where it wasn't particularly uncommon. ::)
-
Just a note for Coombs : David Morrissey was the original narrator, followed by Mark Strong and now Cheri Lunghi.
SM ...
-
, he didn't really seem to grasp some points, and the programme did bop about a lot. Relationships that were indirect seemed to be adopted as direct lines, and at times one cringed a little....
Seems DD had direct descent through the female line. Anne-p message 37 has posted the family tree.
I was once told that if you have a landowning farmer or yeoman you could well have a gateway ancestor. Mine stubbornly remained proud Ag Labs.
-
The chap on More or Less worked out that by the late 1500s, there would be about 20,000 descendants, so one in every 200 people in England was a descendant of Edward III.
Each of us in the present day would have around 15,000 ancestors who were alive in the late 1500s. That gives odds of about 75-1 on that we are descended from Edward.
I'm going to guess that that calculation will be based on an assumption that anyone of the 1500 population is equally likely to be our ancestor.
What Claire, I think it was, is saying is that assumption is false because the subsets of 1500 nobles and non-nobles produce 3 distinct sets of 2016 population I.e. full noble, full common and hybrid noble-common and that the full common subset will far outweigh the other two
If we completely split, for arguments sake, two distinct social classes.
The peasants/industrial labourers - millions
The royals - thousands
They then grow independently of each other (for arguments sake) and never ever meet. This does not change the population as a whole and we would still end up with the same "numbers to play with" population that we had then and have now.
The calculations suggesting we all have a royal ancestor do not take into account the class divide. They assume that everyone had an equal chance of meeting each other and were constantly marrying outside their own social class.
The calculations are purely a number crunching game that put everyone into one big equal blob. But in reality it was a few toffs intermarrying with each other and then, on the other side, a huge mass of labourers who were all intermarrying with each other too.
This a bit of an extreme example, but look at the Hapsburg tree and then consider who the peasants in small hamlets and villages were marrying into at the time too. This is Pedigree Collapse and none of us really know just how extreme it really was ? We might like to think of our ancestors branching out and marrying lots of unrelated people but how often did they really ?
(http://www.abroadintheyard.com/wp-content/uploads/Spanish-Hapsburg-Family-Tree.png)
(http://28oa9i1t08037ue3m1l0i861.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/diamond.png)
-
The calculations suggesting we all have a royal ancestor do not take into account the class divide. They assume that everyone had an equal chance of meeting each other and were constantly marrying outside their own social class.
The calculations are purely a number crunching game that put everyone into one big equal blob. But in reality it was a few toffs intermarrying with each other and then, on the other side, a huge mass of labourers who were all intermarrying with each other too.
But that ignores the fact that over the generations, descendants of royalty/aristocracy didn't always stay at the same level of society. Where primogeniture applied, the younger children didn't inherit as much so their descendants became less well off. Even where it didn't apply, money would be split between many children and over a number of generations the descendants often dropped down social classes marrying into slightly less well to do families, and their descendants became even less well off as the money was split more ways. This is why I think you will find some argue that a lot of people in this country could will be descended from the aristocracy and/or royalty, not because the social classes married well outside their only class.
That is how I found a proven line back to Edward I which wasn't something there was ever known in the family. The particular line were well off until the mid 1600s and then dropped down the social classes over a number of generations as the money was split more and more ways becoming shipwrights, grocers and fisherman, among others, and latterly ended up in the east end of London.
Similarly, I'm also distantly related on another side of the family to the Earls of Lichfield and the Earls of Leicester at Holkham, among others, who are descendants of Sir Edward Coke, the Lord Chief Justice under James I. Sir Edward Coke was the nephew of one of my direct ancestors. The family were not at that point members of the aristocracy, its debateable whether you could call them landed gentry then either but they did have property and quite a lot of money. While a number, but not all, of Sir Edward's descendants eventually reached the heights of the aristocracy, in the case of my line the property and money was split in many directions over the generations so that by the time of the mid 1800s they were living in the east end of London working as labourers on the docks. We have documented with the help of Wills the line back to the Coke family and it just shows how different sides of families faired over the generations.
-
I'm going to guess that that calculation will be based on an assumption that anyone of the 1500 population is equally likely to be our ancestor.
The point is that even then, not all the 20,000 descendants would be considered royal, or even noble. There certainly wasn't a castle or a fancy house for each of those 20,000.
What I'm saying is that there is a lower probability that someone in 1500 married a non-descendant of Edward III than 20000 / 4million
-
What I'm saying is that there is a lower probability that someone in 1500 married a non-descendant of Edward III than 20000 / 4million
But it is not THAT much lower. Say, for argument's sake, as many as half those descendants classed themselves as nobility and never married outside their "class", and demanded that all their descendants did likewise. That leaves 10,000 to mix with the rest of society (of whom many had already done so).
So, it's now only a 35 to 1 chance that you are NOT descended from Edward III.
Statistics throws up some non-intuitive truths. For example, how many people do there have to be in a room for it to be more likely than not that two of them share the same birthday? The answer is just 23. If there are 70 people, the chances of a match of birthday are 99.9%. Statistics are not just a mathematical concept - bookmakers make a good living out of them.
-
Say, for argument's sake, as many as half those descendants classed themselves as nobility and never married outside their "class", and demanded that all their descendants did likewise.
Or suppose I pluck a different equally-random figure from thin air and say that half of the "non noble" subset only marry among themselves. That'll give a 50:50-ish chance of being a descendent. High probability, yes, but a difference similar to that of predicting the result of a coin toss at the start of a cricket match and that of there being a coin toss in the first place.
Stats work if the assumptions behind the calculations are reasonably valid. If they're not, they don't
-
Exactly. Allegedly my Titshall line harks back to a Lord of the manor of Herringfleet in Suffolk. Someone with the surname was Lord of the manor. Titshall is a rare surname as well. My Titshall's were millers in the 1700s, one was a churchwarden. So if they do descend from a lord then they would have slipped down the scale. I have ancestors who were landowners whose children ended up as yeomen or tenant farmers and whose grandchildren ended up as labourers.
Most Brits will descend from royalty whether we can prove it or not. And Danny Dyer is no less the working class person he is just because a very distant ancestor 22 generations back was King Edward III.
The problem for most of us is that the records run out. http://parishregister.net/history.htm
Your everyday commoner did not own any property, so would not leave a will or deeds for example. Parish register records run out at about 1550? if not sooner for most of our ancestors lines. That there might be a rich landowner nearby with the same name does not mean that they are related to our everyday yeoman, ag lab or weaver.
-
The problem for most of us is that the records run out. http://parishregister.net/history.htm
Your everyday commoner did not own any property, so would not leave a will or deeds for example. Parish register records run out at about 1550? if not sooner for most of our ancestors lines. That there might be a rich landowner nearby with the same name does not mean that they are related to our everyday yeoman, ag lab or weaver.
Well I descended from Edward I, not that I attach any importance to it. It's just that sometimes you manage to link into an existing pedigree.
TBH there is less fun in the parts of the tree that you have not found yourself
-
TBH there is less fun in the parts of the tree that you have not found yourself
Never a truer word said :)
-
Very true - if only those name-collectors on Ancestry trees would grasp that! ;)
-
I didn't see the programme but I remember an episode from a previous series featuring a similar scenario with Matthew Pinsent, an Olympic rower. From what I remember of that, there was a scroll showing Royal descent back to God.
If Danny Dyer had followed the line backwards from Edward to William Conqueror and beyond, he would have found one of his ancestors was a tanner, since W. Conk's Ma was a tanner's daughter.
-
This so-called "Royalty" was descended from the bastard of a brigand & a tanner's daughter!
Skoosh.
Mentioned by Skoosh