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

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.

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 19:54:35 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 06-Sep-17 4:35 AM, joecook@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. This is an example of what I meant by the entanglement of Edward III descent with traceability - likelihood and what is known may be at odds, and in any case likelihood in human affairs (not least reproductive ones) may be as unsafe a guide as ignorance. 'Downward' socio-economic mobility can be a very rapid spiral, and going from top to bottom within 7 generations is hardly unexampled. Nor is the reverse, as the ancestry of Prince Charles shows. My impression of the frequency of Edward III is based on the family lines I know best, that all remained in England until at least the mid-19th century. The chances of intermarriage between people with traceable 14th-century ancestry including and not including Edward III was perhaps higher in these circumstances than with earlier emigrant groups. 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. Peter Stewart