What a GREAT list! Jim, you are so right. For a moment earlier I was thinking like my mother. Kings indeed! Hooray for Olaf - and the courageous mother of his many children. No wonder you were thinking of Olaf - farming and weeding are both hard work....especially if you considered using a scepter for the job! Sorry for the glib humor. This list has brought the brightest moments to my day, poor hard-working commoner that I am. But I never forget the simple people. My Pa's folks rode here in a leaky boat and one fell overboard on the way. One half of their group died the first months on these shores and if it weren't for the Native Americans sharing food and helping them I wouldn't be writing this. I still think having a lady in waiting or two would make life more fun. But I'm not overly impressed by the lifestyle. (Well, the Power, maybe - but then look at Lady Jane Grey) Besides, Jesus was a carpenter. That's good enough for me. Barbara -----Original Message----- From: JF [mailto:gen9@cox.net] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 4:10 PM To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PDP] Ancestors of our ancestors Barbara, Barbara wrote: >Of course, whatever one's genealogical chart might show of our >"contemporaneously documented Plantagenet ancestors", notwithstanding >"Modern standards of proof" there is always the distinct possibility that >one or two out of those many generations of offspring was not - shall I >delicately say - strictly from the demonstrated marital alliance - human >nature being what it is. In actuality, if DNA were available from some of >these guys, we might find we are all descended from the gardener and not the >kings at all. > It's interesting to note that when we do mention false paternity, that this was in a group which comprised the upper 2% of that society, perhaps some 40 or so families at any given time who were completely interrelated. If and when a false paternity event did occur, it was among a group that was already so interrelated it wouldn't have even caused a ripple in their gene pool. You have to understand there was no such thing as privacy for royal and noble families. They lived surrounded by others, many of whom were close relatives, 24/7. The gardener and the queen probably never even met. Most people today aren't remotely aware of living conditions in medieval upper class society. How would we be expected to anyway? The typical world history classes offered in high schools? The ever popular medieval history classes we all took in college? Add to that soap operas, reality TV, and learning about both DNA and marital fidelity on the Maury Povich show. >In fact, there IS no ABSOLUTE proof of our ancestry. It's ALL supposition. > > First, "absolute proof" of anything is an impossible standard to hold anything to. When you cash a check and provide two forms of identity, does the clerk cashing the check have absolute proof of your identity? Is there absolute proof the bank will reimburse them the funds from the checking account? I would think not or we wouldn't have check forgers. Is even a DNA sample, absolute proof of one's identity? Not unless you have an absolute chain of custody. Even then mistakes (contamination, mislabeling, etc.) are possible, if even only remotely. Genealogists originally used the standard "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," the same as used in our legal system. But became apparent that standard could be subjectively applied and as such, was not sufficient for genealogical purposes. That brought in the Genealogical Proof Standard. It's basically a 5-step approach to determine if a thing can be said to have been proved. I think anyone reading and understanding what is involved in this unique standard would find it more than adequate to the task. >I just like the thought of having a king, a notably romantic part of world >history, for a grampa. And mowing the weeds in my yard in my tiara from time >to time has earned me a certain status, if you will, in my neighborhood. >I prefer to think our real inheritance from our forebears is attitudinal and >cultural. (And, when there's an ancestor who particularly embarrasses me I >can always claim illegitimacy in my mind.) >It's nice I have such nice smart cousins on this list who are so >genealogically generous. > Personally, and I hope this isn't blasphemy here, I don't think being descended from the Plantagenet family itself is anything special at all. What is special, is that I am able to find the information that allows me to learn who my ancestors were, what they did, and just perhaps, what they were like. And the only thing that makes them special is that they were written about. My ancestor Olaf, standing in his field, minding his own business and not going off with his Viking neighbors was, unfortunately, never written about. He wasn't famous, he wasn't even infamous, and he didn't invade and rule another country. He just raised a family and died quietly on his farm after a lifetime of hard work. Now there's someone I'd have liked to have known more about. Jim PS, I rarely carry my scepter when pulling weeds, I'd be too tempted to use it on the weeds themselves. ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237