On 24/08/17 20:44, norenxaq@san.rr.com wrote: > > ---- wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > >> Maud if she every existed at all, had no royal lineage however >> Her mother is wholely unknown, and her father was a low-level nobody > > this does not automatically preclude a royal ancestry You may possibly be talking at cross purposes here. Maud may well have had royal ancestry if you were able to go back four or five centuries. In some ways it would be surprising if she didn't. But the point Will Johnson is making is that at the moment there's no sign of any surviving evidence that would allow us to determine what if any royal descent she may have. Unless and until we can document exactly how she is descended from royalty, genealogically speaking she has no royal descent. Genealogy is about specific, documented descents, not statistical (or, worse, hand-waving) arguments on the likelihood of descent. By all means keep looking. Perhaps her mother's identity can be found. Perhaps her father is less insignificant that at first it seems. But you can't simply conjure a royal descent out of nowhere. Discovering and properly documenting a new royal descent can take years of sedulous and often fruitless work. It took me thirty years and innumerable dead ends before I finally got there. Perhaps you'll be faster, but don't bank on it. Richard