Sussex Family Historian Article---dont believe it

[Ringrose]

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

[petmas]

Don't tell me her name is Smith 
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.

[behindthefrogs]

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

[swebby]

Yes I read it today, was a bit surprised that it made it into the issue.

[forester]

What a shame that I gave up my subscription this year. 

Phil

[seahall]

Hi All.

Un-believable. 

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

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

[Rod In Sussex]

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! 

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

Rod

[behindthefrogs]

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.

[bearkat]

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.