>How is Bridei son of Der-ilei to be identified with Nechtan son of Dargart? Good question. My original source was Frasers's "From Caledonia to Pictland", which says: "The man who became king of Picts in 696 or 697, another Bridei, appears to have his claim to the kingship on being the son of Der-Ilei his (almost certainly Pictish) mother, his father Dargart having probably been Dargart of Cenel Comgaill.4" His source is Clancy's paper "Philosopher-King", which says: "Nechtan mac Dargarto As noted above, there is more than linguistic evidence to support the view that Der-Ilei was the mother of Bruide and Nechtan, rather than their father: this is also confirmed by the fact that we know the name of their father, and his ancestry. This has hitherto gone unnoticed, and led to problematic alternative solutions.24 In a number of sources, all seemingly deriving ultimately from some item in the hagiographic dossier of St Serf of Culross, such as the Life of St Serf, the Loch Leven notitiae, and Wyntoun’s Chronicle, a Pictish king Bruide is mentioned, with a father Dergart or Dargart. His father also appears in this form in two king lists (D and K, again, deriving this form from records relating to St Serf).25 The main chronological stabiliser for these documents, some of which have serious anachronisms embedded, is the linkage between Adomnán, abbot of Iona 679–704, and Serf, and on this basis there is little doubt that the king intended in these references is Bruide son of Derilei (697–706).26 It has generally been assumed that Dergart/Dargart is a mistaken form of Derilei. 27 This is an odd argument, presumably dependent only on the deceptive similarity of the first elements in Derilei and Dergart, and, one would guess, on the supposed non-existence of a name Dergart or similar.28 However, a contemporary person of just this name does exist. He was the father of a Nectan m. Doirgarto (AU 710.4) and a Congal m. Doirgarto (AU 712.4); and his own death is noted at AU 686.3 and 693.6.29 There is no reason, then, to reject the witness of these other sources to Bruide’s father’s name, especially as Derilei seems on balance to be a female name. The case for Bruide’s parents being respectively a father, Dargart30 and a mother, Der-Ilei, seems strong. Thus, Bruide is attested both as son of Der-Ilei and son of Dargart; and further as the brother of Nechtan. That Dargart was likewise Nechtan’s father seems to be confirmed by AU 710.4, noting the death of two sons of a Nectan m. Doirgarto. Though one might cavil and argue that this need not be the same man as Nechtan son of Der-Ilei, the successive links to Bruide his brother and thence to Bruide’s parents seem to cement the case: in any case, it would be an extraordinary coincidence to find two sets of brothers called Bruide and Nechtan, one set sons of a Dargart, the other sons of a Derilei, both sets living during the same period and noticed in the same relatively constrained set of Scottish oriented annals. We should accept, then, that Nechtan and Bruide shared both father and mother, and that their father was called Dargart. The first element in this otherwise very rare name,31 incidentally, is not der- ‘daughter’, but dair- ‘oak’; as with Der-Ilei, however, the second element is more problematic.32" http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/6631/1/shr.2004.83.2.pdf Philosopher-King: Nechtan mac Der-Ilei<http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/6631/1/shr.2004.83.2.pdf> eprints.gla.ac.uk THOMAS OWEN CLANCY Philosopher-King: Nechtan mac Der-Ilei Withoutdoubtoneofthemorefamouseventsintheprogressofthecon-troversy over the dating of Easter which ... ________________________________ From: GEN-MEDIEVAL <gen-medieval-bounces+bernardmorgan=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Katherine Kennedy <93katekennedy93@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 5:41 PM To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Dal Riadan rulers of Southern Pictland? On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 5:56:47 PM UTC-4, Bernard Morgan wrote: > A question on early Scottish history? > > > Woolf in 2006 correctly identifies Fortriu with Moray, which I believe is clearly show in its usage in the Prophecy of Berchán. Now with Fortriu move from Southern Pictland there is a lack of kings in Southern Pictland. Accept for those which historians have associated with Dal Riadan lineages. (I also note that the late 9th century Fortriu kings are also identified as being from a Dal Riata line.) > > One of these Dal Riadan kings located in Southern Pictland is the 7th century Bridei son of Der-ilei, King of the Picts. He has been identified as being Nechtan son of Dargart son of Fingin son of Eachach son of Loingsech son of Comgall, hence from the Cenel Comgaill line of of Dal Riada. > > Vita Sancti Servani, says that St Serf founded a church at Culross within the time of Bridei son of Der-Ilei of Cenel Comghaill. The life identifies the location of Culross thus: > > “cuillenn ros hi sraith erinn hi comgellaibh etir sliabh n-ochel 7 mur n-guidan” from Leabhar Bhaile an Mhóta > > “Culros in Strathearn (Ireland’s Valley) in Comgall’s peoples (thought as being Cenel Comgaill) between the Ochill Hills and the Forth of Firth.” > (From the Book of Ballymote and the Book of Lecan.) > > So at some point the land which the King of the Picts, Bridei son of Der-Ilei, who is of Cenel Comgaill lineage, grants to St Serf belonged to the people of "Cenel Comgaill". With references to Cenel Comgaill disappearing soon after Bridei reign. I wonder if the land was taken at around the time of his reign, based on the assumption that at only during his time were there descendants of Cenel Comgaill powerful enough to claim land? > > It seems Bridei son of Der-Ilei and his brother may represent a Dal Riata takeover of portions of the lands of the Southern Picts? > > > Additional in the first half of the 8th century, assuming the identification of Alpin mac Eochaid mac Domangart is correct, the Cenel Gabhrain are making their first appearance in Gowrie (they seem to replace Cenel Comgaill in the records). Aplin is defeated by Oengus, king of Fortriu (i.e. Moray), around Moncrieff in Gowrie. Gowrie has been suggested by Dr Woolf to be from Cenel Gabhrain to which Alpin mac Eochaid mac Domangart belonged. This seems supported by the fact that kindred of Alpin’s great uncle Fergus Goll came to occupy Gowrie and another great uncle Connal Cerr’s kindred occupied Fife. > > The "royal line" of Cenel Gabhrain appear as the 8th century as rulers of Fortriu, after the dynasty of Oengus has died out. (Thereby happily fulling a prophecy made by St Patrick as per the Tripartite Life of St Patrick - dated to either the 8th century or 9th century. Which seems to follow a literary tradition of author using know facts of the day and making today's reality the result of blessing or curses accredited to St Patrick or even the gods Lugh or Gobhan.) > > Did the Dal Riada rule Southern Pictland from a earlier time than currently accepted? Hello, Mr. Morgan. I've read some of your posts on other forums on the topic of DNA genealogical research, which have been fascinating. How is Bridei son of Der-ilei to be identified with Nechtan son of Dargart? My own personal presumption is that this area was under the influence of the Cenel Loarn from that time until King David I. It would appear that different branches of the Cenel Loarn claimed power in the region, and presumably also off and on in Argyll, until their submission to the crown. Unfortunately since our knowledge is so limited about this time period I doubt we'll ever have a complete king list for the Cenel Loarn, even though many later clans may have been among their descendants. In fact, with the DNA of the Campbells matching their mortal enemies the MacGregors, and the MacPhersons and the MacBains of Clan Chattan who all claim a Dalriadic origin and all belong to R-S744 with an estimated TMRCA as 1,800 years before present, it's possible they were Cenel Loarn and the duke of Argyll could claim ancestors that ruled in Argyll well over a thousand years ago. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:13:27 PM UTC-7, Steve Riggan wrote: > Bill, your ancestor is in Genealogics here: > > http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00624570&tree=LEO > > If she is descended from Lambert of Louvain, the line on that side goes to > Louis IV of France. . . . . I didn't see Edward the Elder on this pedigree, > but maybe Leo didn't have that information when he posted the line. He was maternal grandfather of Louis IV. taf

The most recent royal ancestor for the Lawrence family of Hertfordshire is Louis IV of France 936-954.

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, William T. Erbes wrote: > Regrettably, my gateway ancestor William Lawrence (bapt. 28 Jul 1622, St. Albans Abbey, Hertfordshire, England; d. bef 25 Mar 1680, Flushing, Long Island, New York) does not have a line extending back to Edward III. > His most recent royal ancestor appears to have been Edward the Elder. > OK, this does have me curious - how do you get to Edward the Elder without having any more recent royal connections? What line does that follow? taf

Are there any Staffords here who hail from Rutland or Leicester, or know anything about those who do? If so, are they connected in any way to any of the well-known Staffords of medieval England? I only ask because my great, great-grandfather came from England to Canada in the 1850s and, apparently, told all his many children that they were descended from the Dukes of Buckingham. I know this because when I went looking for relatives in Canada (I am from the U.S.), they had the same story that had been told to my father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. I find this hard to believe, as I have found nothing to substantiate it, but my great, great-grandfather was a very honest and religious man, born in 1818, and I can't think of any reason he would instill this in his children's minds, unless this had been passed down for some time. I've thought, well, maybe we were just born on the wrong side of the blanket??? Thoughts? I'm grateful to anyone who replies because I have reached the point where I cannot trace any further due to there being so many Staffords! Thank you, Julie

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 4:25:00 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > In view of this, it would be interesting to know what proportion of > American 'gateway' ancestors traced at least to the mid-14th century did > not have a known line to Edward III. I have four that I can trace that early, one has a line from Edward III, two only trace to Edward I, and one has a reasonably broad pedigree but no royalty whatsoever, though with numerous 'near misses, where the royal-derived marriage came a generation after, i.e. involved a sibling of the immigrant's ancestor. I have to think that the timing of the emigration established an artificial barrier, removing immigrants of this class from proximity to the pool of families with traceable royal descent just as it was in the process of permeating the lower gentry, and instead presenting them with a new marriage pool that was largely untraceable, due to a combination of representing a different class distribution than their likely marriage pool in England, and the poor documentation regarding the pre-immigration origin of the majority of immigrants. taf

I have occasionally summarized recent papers on Iberian royal genealogy, and here is another one. There is a problem with the chronology of the early kingdom of Pamplona. The preserved pedigree in the Codice de Roda and the works of Ibn Hayyan, Al Udri and Ibn Hazm combine to produce a chronological framework that simply requires too many unlikey suppositions, either having people fight battles at the age of 70+ or have many generations in too short a time. The crux of the problem centers on the two earliest datable births in the Pamplona royal kindred, those of Garcia Sanchez II of Pamplona (917) and of his cousin Abd ar Rahman III (891). The Codice de Roda shows these two monarchs to be half-first cousins: Oneca, daughter of king Fortun Garces (deposed 905) is shown to have first married Aznar Sanchez of Larron by whom she had Toda Aznar, Garcia's mother, and secondly to the emir Abdullah, whose son Muhammad was father of Abd ar Rahman. This is flawed, as Muhammad is thought to have been born about 864, meaning Toda was 54 or older when Garcia was born. Usually, this is addressed by reversing the order of Oneca's 'marriages'. This would allow Toda to be born after her mother's return to Pamplona, and put her more in her late 30s at Garcia's birth. It is consistent with a model whereby Sancho I, in deposing Fortun, married the king's granddaughter to give him some legitimacy, kind of like Henry VII's marriage to Elizabeth of York. There is still a crunch at the other end, though. Oneca is supposedly 3 generations down from Iñigo Arista. Were we to use typical averages for those generations, it would put the birth of Iñigo Arista about in 755, but he was militarily active in the 840s. One is forced to use generation spans of 15 years for Oneca and 20 years for each of the three men to have Inigo born at a reasonable date, and while you sometimes see spans this short, you rarely see so many in a row, what with infant mortality and the possibility of a run of daughters first (as was the case with Toda's children). Enter the new paper. Cañada Juste has proposed that the genealogy in the Codice de Roda, that serves as the basis for the whole family tree has made a simple mistake between two women of the same name who married men of the same name. He would suggest that the mother of Muhammad ibn Abdullah was not the same woman as Toda's mother. A look at the pedigree in the Codice shows the following: Iñigo Arista ..Garcia Iñiguez ....Oneca m. Aznar Galindez ....Fortun Garces ......Oneca m.1 Aznar Sanchez, m.2 Abdullah ........Toda m. Sancho Garces ..........Garcia Sanchez (b. 917) ........Muhammad (b. c. 864) ..........Abd ar Rahman III (b. 891) Note that we have in successive generations two princesses named Oneca who each married men named Aznar, and that the births of supposed first cousins Garcia and Abd er Rahman are 26 years apart, a full generation different. He proposes that it was actually the elder Oneca who was grandmother of the Caliph: Iñigo Arista ..Garcia Iñiguez ....Oneca m.1 Abdullah, m.2 Aznar Galindez ......Muhammad (b. c. 864) ........Abd ar Rahman III (b. 891) ....Fortun Garces ......Oneca m Aznar Sanchez ........Toda m. Sancho Garces ..........Garcia Sanchez (b. 917) This has the advantage of freeing the birth of the younger Oneca from chronological constraints. She would be a contemporary of Muhammad b. 864, not his mother, and the years gained could then be distributed among the generations between her and Iñigo, allowing her to have been in her late teens and give the males averages in the mid-20s. One could envision Iñigo Arista born ca. 795, Garcia ca. 819, Fortun ca. 843, Oneca Fortunez ca. 867, Toda ca. 886 and married 905 (these are my dates - Cañada Juste puts Iñigo's birth about 785, but I think it unlikely to have been this early). This would make Iñigo 50 when he was fighting his last battles, and his son Garcia about 25 when he took over for his debilitated father. Were Iñigo really the half-brother of Musa ibn Musa, he could be born in the neighborhood of 805, and be 56 when he went to war against his son-in-law in 861 and was mortally wounded (not 72 as most reconstructions would require him to have been, though my dating would require accepting the alternative pedigree of the Banu Qasi put forward by Martinez Diez). In terms of affecting descent, I am unaware of any descendants of Muhammad ibn Abdullah, so this would simply shift Abd er Rahman from being nephew of Toda to being her first-cousin, still close enough that she might have expected to a favorable reception when seeking his intervention on behalf of Sancho I of Leon. Descendants of both Oneca/Aznar marriages would be unaffected, except with respect to the chronology. Alberto Cañada Juste, "Doña Onneca, una princesa vascona en la corte de los emires cordobeses", Príncipe de Viana, 74:481-502 (2013) As an added bonus, I was just reading the translations of Arabic source material provided in Lorenzo-Jimenez's work on the Banu Qasi and came across something interesting. Ibn Hayyan was said by Levi Provencal and Garcia Gomez to have made Iñigo Arista and Musa ibn Musa maternal half-brothers. Al-Udri has a similar sentence, but with critical differences. First, while Ibn Hayyan names Wannaqo ibn Wannaqo as the kinsman of Musa, Al Udri refers to Ibn Yannaqo ibn Wannaqo - the son of Iñigo Iñiguez. Further, Lorenzo Jimenez interprets the relational statement as indicating that this son of Iñigo Iñiguez was the brother of the mother of Musa ibn Musa (not brother 'by' the mother, maternal half-brother, as per the Levi Provencal Garcia Gomez translation of Ibn Hayyan). It is chronologically untenable to make Iñigo Iñiguez the maternal grandfather of Musa ibn Musa (such that the son of Iñigo would be the maternal uncle) but if we assume that Al Udri made a slip in the first 'ibn' and that he intended to refer to Iñigo Iñiguez as the brother of the mother (rather than brother by the mother) of Musa, we would still have a third way these are said to be related through the distaff side (remembering that the Codice de Roda calls Musa the son-in-law of Iñigo) one has to think that this is simply a vague tradition of a kinship through a woman that each source is representing differently (with a big caveat - I have yet to go back to the Arabic text to ensure the difference between the Ibn Hayyan and Al Udri relationships isn't due to different translations of the same Arabic description of their relationship. taf

> That he wanted people to believe he was can be easily discarded if he wanted so he would have put it in many if not all of his documents not only in his will that I'm sure that most of the colony did not see. About the College of Arms. From H.Allen Curtis ´In a letter dated 9 February 1953, Captain de La Lanne-Mirrlees, then Rouge > Dragon pursuivant, of the College of Arms agreed that Thomas Dudley was entitled to > the use of the Sutton-Dudley coat of arms, and that his seal provides “reasonable, though > inferential proof” of Thomas Dudley’s paternal lineage.` I will refer you to the archives and not rehash this here again, but aside from the college at arms in 1953 having as much ability to declare these things as your uncle Bob, the statement is internally contradictory to say that he both "was entitled" but that the lineage is only "inferential". --Joe C

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 9:34:36 PM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote: ... > It would be interesting to know if anyone in this group can trace at > least one line each for 20% of their great-great-grandparents (say 3 of > the 16, assuming these are three different people) back to > mid-14th-century England without running into Edward III. ... > Peter Stewart Of my 16 great-great-grandparents, four have British ancestry. One of them can be traced to Henry VII (and James V). One of them can be traced to Edward I but not, to my knowledge, to Edward III. The third can be traced to the 1300s (10 of his ancestors), but not, to my knowledge, to Edward III (or any of the post conquest English kings). Of the fourth, I know his birth date and birth place in Ireland and the names of his parents, but nothing more. Eight of my great-great-grandparents were Swiss. Of them, two have been traced to ordinary people living in the mid 1400s (all but one of the others, via parish registers, to ancestors in the 1500s or 1600s). Four of my great-great-grandparents lived near Stuttgart. Three of them have been traced to ordinary people living in the mid 1400s (all three to the same people). Five of my spouse's great-great-grandparents have British ancestry. One of them can be traced to Henry II, but not, to our knowledge, to Edward III. (This ancestor may also be a descendant of John, but that line is not completely documented).

Em terça-feira, 5 de setembro de 2017 21:15:21 UTC+1, joe...@gmail.com escreveu: > Some corrections to your statements are in order: > > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 3:52:23 PM UTC-4, Paulo Canedo wrote: > "> So like many you descend from Thomas Dudley. About Thomas Dudley's descent from Edward III. Thomas Dudley's use of the Sutton-Dudley heralds in his will proves he was descended from them" > > -> No, it proves merely that 1) he wanted people to think he was OR 2) he just liked the way they looked OR 3) he was descended from them. > > "the College of Arms confirmed that Thomas Dudley had right to use them. " > > -> The College of Arms did no such thing, and anyway statement is as useful as if your uncle Bob had confirmed it. > > "To me the question is where exactly he belonged in the Sutton-Dudleys. As you know Marshall Kirk made a very good case he was paternal grandson of Henry Dudley and it appears that H. Allen Curtis proved it see http://www.familypage.org/mystdud.pdf and https://web.archive.org/web/20110726045518/http://www.familypage.org/RogerSonoHenry.pdf." > > As I said, I think it is a very good case, and I think he is probably right on target, but falls short of an absolute 'proof' because it fails (in my opinion) to resolve the conflicting evidence sufficiently to rule out alternatives. > --Joe C That he wanted people to believe he was can be easily discarded if he wanted so he would have put it in many if not all of his documents not only in his will that I'm sure that most of the colony did not see. About the College of Arms. From H.Allen Curtis ´In a letter dated 9 February 1953, Captain de La Lanne-Mirrlees, then Rouge Dragon pursuivant, of the College of Arms agreed that Thomas Dudley was entitled to the use of the Sutton-Dudley coat of arms, and that his seal provides “reasonable, though inferential proof” of Thomas Dudley’s paternal lineage.`

Some corrections to your statements are in order: On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 3:52:23 PM UTC-4, Paulo Canedo wrote: "> So like many you descend from Thomas Dudley. About Thomas Dudley's descent from Edward III. Thomas Dudley's use of the Sutton-Dudley heralds in his will proves he was descended from them" -> No, it proves merely that 1) he wanted people to think he was OR 2) he just liked the way they looked OR 3) he was descended from them. "the College of Arms confirmed that Thomas Dudley had right to use them. " -> The College of Arms did no such thing, and anyway statement is as useful as if your uncle Bob had confirmed it. "To me the question is where exactly he belonged in the Sutton-Dudleys. As you know Marshall Kirk made a very good case he was paternal grandson of Henry Dudley and it appears that H. Allen Curtis proved it see http://www.familypage.org/mystdud.pdf and https://web.archive.org/web/20110726045518/http://www.familypage.org/RogerSonoHenry.pdf." As I said, I think it is a very good case, and I think he is probably right on target, but falls short of an absolute 'proof' because it fails (in my opinion) to resolve the conflicting evidence sufficiently to rule out alternatives. --Joe C

Em terça-feira, 5 de setembro de 2017 20:14:09 UTC+1, joe...@gmail.com escreveu: > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 2:43:27 PM UTC-4, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > Dear Joe, could you please give the likely descent from Edward III? I would like to check it. > > The descent is through Thomas Dudley governor of Massachusetts. I believe it is "probable", meaning, more likely than not, but others might say "possible" or less. > > Certainly it is not 'solid' by any means. Which, if it is not proven in the future would leave 64 4x-great grandparents well traced with none leading back to Edward III. > > I am hopeful that a current book in progress will help to clear up some of those issues. > > --Joe C So like many you descend from Thomas Dudley. About Thomas Dudley's descent from Edward III. Thomas Dudley's use of the Sutton-Dudley heralds in his will proves he was descended from them the College of Arms confirmed that Thomas Dudley had right to use them. To me the question is where exactly he belonged in the Sutton-Dudleys. As you know Marshall Kirk made a very good case he was paternal grandson of Henry Dudley and it appears that H. Allen Curtis proved it see http://www.familypage.org/mystdud.pdf and https://web.archive.org/web/20110726045518/http://www.familypage.org/RogerSonoHenry.pdf.

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 2:43:27 PM UTC-4, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Dear Joe, could you please give the likely descent from Edward III? I would like to check it. The descent is through Thomas Dudley governor of Massachusetts. I believe it is "probable", meaning, more likely than not, but others might say "possible" or less. Certainly it is not 'solid' by any means. Which, if it is not proven in the future would leave 64 4x-great grandparents well traced with none leading back to Edward III. I am hopeful that a current book in progress will help to clear up some of those issues. --Joe C

On 05/09/17 01:37, joecook@gmail.com wrote: > The number of generations since Charlemagne ensures that even a model with the most insanely restrictive parameters imaginable still shows that he is truly the father of practically all of present day Europe. It is not a falsifiable hypothesis. How does it "show" anything? -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

Em terça-feira, 5 de setembro de 2017 19:54:35 UTC+1, P J Evans escreveu: > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:35:54 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > > My children have a complete solid 7 generation tree, and some of those 7th generation ancestors have a complete 7 generation solid tree. Most of the 7 generations have been backed up via DNA. > > > > I am an American at the bottom of the social ladder. > > > > Out of these 64 ancestors which are all over Europe: (England, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands,Poland,Ireland): > > > > 1 of them can be traced, probably, to Edward 3. > > 2 more can be traced to mid 14th C but are not E3 descendants. > > > > None of the rest can be traced back to 14th C, but many of them back to c1550 which is good enough to tell me that a E3 descent of any kind is highly, highly, highly unlikely. Anyone born in 1550 would only have 128 ancestors in edward3's generation and there is no reason to think that tiny sample set would include a king. > > > > Three of these 64 probably get close enough to titled folks that a E1 descent would not be a total shock,but more likely than not there is not one of those either that will ever be traceable. > > > > Joe c > > Your tree sounds like mine - except that mine includes one line that goes to New Jersey about 1800 and stops there, and several families from the north of England in the 19th century that can't be traced back before the mid-17/mid-18th centuries. Most of them were farmers, some were craftsmen. > > I have ONE person who can be traced to Edward I on multiple lines (Audrey Barlow and Jeremy Clarke (twice) through both of her parents). Hello, Mr. Evans, through Jeremy Clarke you may have descent from Edward III however that rests on a connection not accepeted by all scholars that is the Neville-Weston connection. Some scholars accept it others do not.

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:35:54 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > My children have a complete solid 7 generation tree, and some of those 7th generation ancestors have a complete 7 generation solid tree. Most of the 7 generations have been backed up via DNA. > > I am an American at the bottom of the social ladder. > > Out of these 64 ancestors which are all over Europe: (England, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands,Poland,Ireland): > > 1 of them can be traced, probably, to Edward 3. > 2 more can be traced to mid 14th C but are not E3 descendants. > > None of the rest can be traced back to 14th C, but many of them back to c1550 which is good enough to tell me that a E3 descent of any kind is highly, highly, highly unlikely. Anyone born in 1550 would only have 128 ancestors in edward3's generation and there is no reason to think that tiny sample set would include a king. > > Three of these 64 probably get close enough to titled folks that a E1 descent would not be a total shock,but more likely than not there is not one of those either that will ever be traceable. > > Joe c Your tree sounds like mine - except that mine includes one line that goes to New Jersey about 1800 and stops there, and several families from the north of England in the 19th century that can't be traced back before the mid-17/mid-18th centuries. Most of them were farmers, some were craftsmen. I have ONE person who can be traced to Edward I on multiple lines (Audrey Barlow and Jeremy Clarke (twice) through both of her parents).

Em terça-feira, 5 de setembro de 2017 19:35:54 UTC+1, joe...@gmail.com escreveu: > My children have a complete solid 7 generation tree, and some of those 7th generation ancestors have a complete 7 generation solid tree. Most of the 7 generations have been backed up via DNA. > > I am an American at the bottom of the social ladder. > > Out of these 64 ancestors which are all over Europe: (England, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands,Poland,Ireland): > > 1 of them can be traced, probably, to Edward 3. > 2 more can be traced to mid 14th C but are not E3 descendants. > > None of the rest can be traced back to 14th C, but many of them back to c1550 which is good enough to tell me that a E3 descent of any kind is highly, highly, highly unlikely. Anyone born in 1550 would only have 128 ancestors in edward3's generation and there is no reason to think that tiny sample set would include a king. > > Three of these 64 probably get close enough to titled folks that a E1 descent would not be a total shock,but more likely than not there is not one of those either that will ever be traceable. > > Joe c Dear Joe, could you please give the likely descent from Edward III? I would like to check it.

My children have a complete solid 7 generation tree, and some of those 7th generation ancestors have a complete 7 generation solid tree. Most of the 7 generations have been backed up via DNA. I am an American at the bottom of the social ladder. Out of these 64 ancestors which are all over Europe: (England, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands,Poland,Ireland): 1 of them can be traced, probably, to Edward 3. 2 more can be traced to mid 14th C but are not E3 descendants. None of the rest can be traced back to 14th C, but many of them back to c1550 which is good enough to tell me that a E3 descent of any kind is highly, highly, highly unlikely. Anyone born in 1550 would only have 128 ancestors in edward3's generation and there is no reason to think that tiny sample set would include a king. Three of these 64 probably get close enough to titled folks that a E1 descent would not be a total shock,but more likely than not there is not one of those either that will ever be traceable. Joe c

On 05-Sep-17 10:37 AM, joecook@gmail.com wrote: > I dont think you want to entangle the Edward III question with the charlemagne question. The number of generations since Charlemagne ensures that even a model with the most insanely restrictive parameters imaginable still shows that he is truly the father of practically all of present day Europe. > I have a few *trillion* spaces in my ahnentafel to fill for people contemporaneous to Charlemagne, and other than a few hundred people at a time, nobody in Europe knew if their, say, 21x great grandfather was Charlemagne or not, so clearly they did not selectively choose a spouse based on that knowledge. > Even in a society with a very strict caste system there would have been enough people who slept with the stable boy or the local hooker to ensure the same result. I agree, we can never know how far illegitimacy has spread any remote ancestor throughout the population. The Edward III question is already tangled enough in itself anyway - the supposed percentage of people with substantially English ancestry who may be his descendants is tangled up with the percentage of lines that may be traceable. It would be interesting to know if anyone in this group can trace at least one line each for 20% of their great-great-grandparents (say 3 of the 16, assuming these are three different people) back to mid-14th-century England without running into Edward III. Statistics and estimates can be a dangerous temptation: 80% is a proportion that is bound to encourage speculation in genealogy - as with name transmission, where studies are often blithely ignored that find somewhat less than 80% of Frankish aristocrats in the 8th and 9th centuries can be shown to have been given names from either parent's family (for instance, 77% in western Francia according to Régine Le Jan, 66% in Swabia according to Hans-Werner Goetz). Peter Stewart

The American colonies. Sorry, I didn't clarify. Sent from my iPad > On Sep 4, 2017, at 10:45 PM, Robert O'Connor <roconnor@es.co.nz> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 15:45:11 UTC+12, Steve Riggan wrote: >> Out of my 16 great-great grandparents, only 3 have traceable royal ancestry. One is to Edward III and the others to Edward I. Most of my other lines can be traced as far as immigration to this country with only 5 or 6 to Europe. I have one of these lines can be traced to a prominent landed family in England in the 1400's but no royal descents. >> >> Steve Riggan >> > When you say "this country", which country do you mean. This is a newsgroup with a worldwide following, not just a following from one country. > > Robert O'Connor > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message