Royal connections

[Quarryman]

An ongoing puzzle for me - how come so many 'celebrities' appearing on television ancestry programmes are told they are related to royalty/aristocracy and have their ancestry traced back centuries even into the 'dark ages'.  I have so fare been unable to trace my common ancestry back further than the 1600s. Records beyond that are impossible to find, if they even exist.
Just asking.

[Stanwix England]

I think a disproportionate number of celebrities come from well connected backgrounds, so they are more likely to have a so called 'gateway' ancestor in their tree. Someone who was significantly important enough to have their own family tree documented back in the day.

[jaywit]

One problem is we don't know how many celebs have had their tree researched and just ordinary working class folks back to the 18th century found then like most of us hit a brick wall.

I know Michael Parkinson is much quoted but my guess is they are many more we don't know about.

[Brie]

As Stanwix points out once you find a gateway ancestor it becomes quite straightforward to get back much earlier.

Another reason is that the sample is a selected one. That is, many more people will have had their trees investigated and those without an interesting story (from the point of view of making a television programme) will have been discarded.

Brie

[Ruskie]

I agree with the other comments, however I don’t think there are that many who they find have links to the aristocracy.

What I think the programme makers are usually chasing is just some kind of interesting back story, or to prove that a celebrities specific talent is passed down from a (possibly tenuous) link to ancestors who had a similar talent or interest. Eg musical, acting etc.

Any links to royalty or landed gentry are often recorded and some survive, which is why it is sometimes possible to get back further on those lines than with common folk.

Highly edited, highly contrived but a good watch nonetheless.

[Quarryman]

Thanks guys, but I'm still sceptical on these claims

[Kiltpin]

I think "Royal Connections" is a far better way of putting it, rather than "Gateway Ancestor". I have a connection to all the aristocracy and crowned heads of Europe, but none of them are my ancestor.   

My uncle married a Carrapiet; 
10 generations back, a male Carrapiet married the youngest daughter of the Stewarts of Shambellie;   
the Stewarts of Shambellie were a cadet branch (2nd or 3rd son) of the Royal Stewarts; 
and from there to all the royal heads. 

A nice connection but no ancestor. 

Regards 

Chas

[Quarryman]

A voice of reason.

[Maiden Stone]

An ongoing puzzle for me - how come so many 'celebrities' appearing on television ancestry programmes are told they are related to royalty/aristocracy and have their ancestry traced back centuries even into the 'dark ages'.  I have so fare been unable to trace my common ancestry back further than the 1600s. Records beyond that are impossible to find, if they even exist.

TV programmes have access to paid researchers, specialists and archives which may not be available to ordinary folk.