For all you lovely people out there who have helped with the Griffiths research, this is the story. A friend, seeing how I'd pieced together my family history and how far back I'd got (1538), asked me if I would look at her family history. At the time, it seemed a good idea (!); it would keep me off the streets, out of the shops and keep the brain cells on their toes. Mary had inherited what I refer to as her family archives. Amongst the papers were several pedigree charts, historic documents, two cameo paintings (the male and female subjects to be identified if possible) and some photographs. I admit that I quailed somewhat when I began to delve into the box, wonderingwhat had possessed me to say yes, wondering how I'd ever make sense of it all, but being known as someone who likes a challenge, I couldn't change my mind. Unfortunately, whilst the pedigree charts give a lot of names and some titles, there are few dates and even fewer places. It's okay if you know you're looking for people who will de documented in the peerage and landed gentry books but if not, trying to locate bmd details pre civil registration and censuses, is a bit difficult if you don't know which part of the country to start looking, let alone which parish. One of the pedigree charts showed Mary as being descended from King Edward III and I set about proving it. I tried going from Mary backwards but hit problems, so I decided to start from Edward III and work down. I got myself a reader's ticket for the University of Cambridge Library so that I can consult rare genealogy books as well as books like Burke's Peerage. In the process of checking the pedigree, I discovered that Mary's ancestry wasn't quite as depicted on the chart. The woman who was shown as being the 3x great grand daughter of Edward III was actually the second wife of a Lord, not his first. And Mary was descended from the first wife. Oh dear! How was I going to tell her that she's not descended from Edward III after all? After a couple of days worrying about it, it occurred to me that many of the families at that high level around the royal court married between themselves and so I explored the pedigree of the Lord's first wife, and discovered that the she was also the 3x great grand daughter of Edward III, but by a different son. A son who was rather more important in the history of England than the other one. And that the Lord's first wife was also 5x great grand daughter of Edward I by another line. It would all have been a lot easier and the mistake wouldn't have happened if the silly Lord hadn't chosen to call the son by his second wife the same name as a son by his first wife, seven years apart. One of the old peerage or royalty books said that it had lead to confusion. Quite! I was able to confirm the rest of the pedigree down to Mary with only occasional difficulty. Some of it took a bit of time as I sidetracked, trying to find out about the people involved. Being descended from Edward III means that Mary is also descended from William The Conqueror, so I've drawn her a new pedigree chart, covering 900 years of history. And I drew up a simplified family tree, starting with Edward I, covering ten generations and showing the lines she descended from, as well as the line she was thought to descend from. Sections of the family tree are coloured to show the houses of York and Lancaster, as well as the Tudors and Stuarts. In the process I learnt much more about how the royal history of England fitted together than I ever knew before. In my own family history I'd found that my great grandfather, his father, his uncles and their cousins were all tenant farmers on several of the farms belonging to the estate of the Dukes of Somerset. And now I found that the Somersets originated with Mary's 18x great grandfather. I've not told her that bit yet, but when I next see her, I don't know whether to curtsy because of her [admitedly distant] royal connections, or doff my cap and tug my forelock as my ancestors would have done to her ancestors. :-) Towards the bottom of the pedigree chart was the name John Ernest Bush. He's not descended from that royal line but married into the family. A lot of the archive papers referred to John Ernest Bush and there was a pedigree chart for the Bush family, right back to the 1400s. John was the son of Robert Bush and Emily Adrin Griffiths. I discovered a lot about John (and his family), including John's distinguished army/war service. He was made a Companion of the Order of the Bath and in the archives is the document, signed by George V and Kitchener. I've proved the connections between Robert and John Bush and Mary, but I've not yet made any attempt to trace that Bush pedigree back to the 1400s. I'm hopeful that a lot of it is around the Bristol area, where Robert Bush came from. Then I picked up another of the pedigree charts, for the Buckworth-Herne family and began proving that one. This also leads to John Bush, through his mother, Emily Adrin Griffiths. Emily's Great grandfather was the 5th Bart, Sir Everard Buckworth-Herne. The chart had the name of his wife, but no details, and so, being of an inquisitive nature, I started checking her out. And worked my way back to King Charles II, who, amongst all of his amourous affairs, had a fling with a certain lady of his mother's court. Because she was a lady of a respected family and their illegitimate daughter married an earl, the details are well documented. I'm not sure that Mary is particularly thrilled to know she is descended from the wrong side of one of King Charles' many blankets but it puts her in good company since Princess Diana, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall and Sarah, Duchess of York are also descended from such liaisons. The Buckworth-Herne chart showed that Charlotte, the daughter of the 5th Bart married Henry Lucas but gives no details. Their daughter Elizabeth (or, as we now think, Eliza Ann) married Colonel Griffiths, 96th Foot Regiment. Again, no other details. And their daughter Emily Adrin Griffiths married Robert Bush. So, I had two questions: who were Henry Lucas and Colonel Griffiths? I have no clue to Henry Lucas and my only clue to Colonel Griffiths was the census which showed Emily and Robert Bush and gave Emily's birthplace as Cheshunt. And that, you incredible people of Hertfordshire Rootsweb list, is where you all stepped in. Do all queries to the Hertfordshire list get such a result? I've been on the Wiltshire list for years and have never seen a topic take on such a life. To say that I am amazed by the information which you've sent winging in my direction is an understatement. Every time I thought it was done, more messages appeared in the inbox. I laughed out loud as I read Anthony's comment "I have a nagging feeling though it was the first marriage we were asked to help with!" I know we, or rather you, have gone far beyond the first marriage of Edwin Griffiths but it is so fascinating that I can't help but include it all in what I tell Mary. In a way, it doesn't matter that these aren't my ancestors. I've been totally engrossed in it. It brings history alive. It brings home what all our ancestors did. It doesn't matter whether they were landed gentry with royal connections like Mary's, tenant farmers in Wiltshire like some of mine, or a soldier in the British Army in India like another of my great grandfathers (who married the daughter of a soldier there and chose to join the Indian Army rather than leave India with the rest of his battalion), or soldiers who accompanied convicts to Tasmania and then stayed to marry the female convicts and found a settlement. Or whatever the story is of your ancestors. They all make up the threads of our rich ancestral tapestry. I was planning to go to HALS this week but I've had so much information, on and off list, that I need to sit quietly this evening and collate it all and see what I still need to look up. I'll let you know if I still need to go, just in case you would like something looked up. And, since I'm only 20 minutes walk from the Cambridgeshire Archives, do let me know if I can look up anything there for you. I'll be replying to the posts as I go through them but, in the meantime, thank you all so much. Susan