So You Think You are Royal

[patrish]

Hi Robinthered,

I have only  just noticed in your first post that Charles 2nd,s episode is on 2nd July, I would love to see thier connection but I will be on holiday   

They did tell me that they had chosen another link, I expect they  can be proven easier whereas mine is extreamely difficult if not impossible 

[Windsor87]

Perhaps I should contact the show.

Although my only link can only be 'proven' by the will of John Gordon, John Gordon of Kinellar's son. His 'natural' (not lawful) daughter and only child inherited 20 pounds in his will. She refused it because he had not married her mother because his own mother, the Hon. Henrietta Fraser, did not aprove of the marriage. This was all mentioned in the 'Christian Watt Papers' so I was fairly content when I saw that a Jane Crawford was, indeed, left 20 pounds in the will.

If this evidence is credible enough, I have connections to King James IV of Scotland, King Edward I of England, and King Christian I of Denmark, Norway and Sweden as well has half the Scottish nobilty. They had a tendency to keep it in certain circles. As a result, I'm related to the aforementioned more than once!

[Springbok]

I have just seen the programme tonight on Freeview 11(Sky 3)

This family wanted to establish a connection to the Dukes of Marlborough.IE the Spencer's, Churchills and Diana/Prince William.

Whilst  accurate as far as the research back was concerned,there was a leap which Nick took which I found iffy.He said that the 1st Duke had an uncle  William (present Duke had never heard of him)!
Then there was only one missing descendant link. Went to a church to look at old records and that page(on vellum) was illegible.

With modern technology it might be possible to x-ray these records,even if the ink had been washed away, there are still indentations.
They went back to the editor of Debretts who ,obviously, said that without the definite connections they couldn't put in an entry for the family.

I was shocked to hear Nick say that as a genealogist, and an historian he was sure that there was enough evidence that they were connected!!
We try so hard to make sure that all the connections we find are Kosher, and if anything is doubtful,stop until we can verify or reject.Or what is the point in just collecting names?

[Simon G.]

I was shocked to hear Nick say that as a genealogist, and an historian he was sure that there was enough evidence that they were connected!!

Well, as a genealogist and an historian I say Nick needs to go back to school and learn what the correct procedure for forming a coherent and accurate historical theory is!  There's no more evidence there to prove the point than there is to prove I'm king of Siam!  Absence of evidence and blindly pretending your theory is accurate does not equate to a researcher being correct, and quite frankly coming out with stupid statements claiming that a clearly dubious theory is written in stone just makes the rest of us look bad.
History is based on hard fact and the interpretation thereof, not hearsay and conjecture.  Where a gap in the records exists, you can't just make it up and pretend it is.

[Springbok]

Do so agree,
I am just an amateur, depending a great deal on the "hands on" research of ,others.but never accept a doubtful connection unless I can manage to verify the link.

The College of Arms has thoroughly researched Ancestry of our noble families,but this source has not been used that I remember?

They accept a tree to a mere 4 generations back. not so easy as one might think to provide cast iron evidence,which then has to be verified by the College .A very expensive exercise.

The BBC series WDYTYA as the first genealogy Programme  seemed to have been better researched but then they weren't made for Profit!
(And perhaps I wasn't so cynical/critical)!

Spring

[jillruss]

I've suspected for a while that Nick is a bit too ubiquitous and , unfortunately, with that 'fame', might come a bit of  - shall we say 'flexibility' in his approach. Not that I'm accusing him of anything - just observing that the pressures from the programme makers may be overwhelming.

Jill

[Time]

The first genealogy programme that I can recall featured Gordon Honeycombe. This was on the BBC. I am sure there were several episodes and I also recall a drowning in a stream near to the church. I think Mr Honeycombe put his own interpretation on the events. Anyone else recall this series?

                           Time
   

[otters]

I do have a connection to the Spencer family.

My 4th cousin 4 times removed married the 3rd cousin 4 times removed from the present Earl of Spencer and both families are linked through Charles Spencer the 3rd Earl of Sunderland 1675-1722. My relations go through one of his son's where as the Earl's go through another of the son's. if that makes sense.

How do you contact these people who make the TV programmes?

[patrish]

The short answer is you dont .

For this particular series they advertised for people to respond  in the Find MY Past Online Newletter,  so if you are a subscriber,  keep you eyes peeled.