In message <50489769.31859.54C794@roy.stockdill.btinternet.com>, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com writes >Could I stress, for the benefit of beginners, that we need to be very >careful when we bandy >around terms like "ancestor"? An ancestor means, literally, someone who >is in the direct line >of descent, i.e. in the direct blood line. Someone who was a member of >the same family but >not in the direct line is properly described as a COLLATERAL ancestor, >meaning someone >who came from the same family but was not in the direct line. But because the number of people in the world is limited, we must all share ancestors at some stage? John -- John Rouse

From: John Rouse <yorksgen07@timewarp.demon.co.uk> > In message <50489769.31859.54C794@roy.stockdill.btinternet.com>, > roy.stockdill@btinternet.com writes > >Could I stress, for the benefit of beginners, that we need to be > > very careful when we bandy around terms like "ancestor"? An ancestor means, literally, > > someone who is in the direct line of descent, i.e. in the direct blood line. Someone who > > was a member > > of the same family but not in the direct line is properly described as a COLLATERAL > ancestor, meaning someone who came from the same family but was not in the direct line. > > But because the number of people in the world is limited, we must > all share ancestors at some stage?> That is a well-known mathematical conundrum which we could debate forever, but that wasn't the point I was making. The thread arose because I queried whether Guy Fawkes left any direct blood descendants and whether a family in Germany could be descended from him. If there is no formal proof (which there isn't) that Guy Fawkes married and had a son, then there is no evidence we can accept of living descendants. I made the point that it may well be that this family in Germany descend from another line of the Fawkes family but in that case they would be known as COLLATERAL descendants of Guy Fawkes. Yes, they may well share ancestors with him in earlier generations but it doesn't alter the definition of what a collateral descendant is. To cite another example, it's pretty certain historically that William Shakespeare left no descendants beyond his granddaughter, Elizabeth, who died in 1670 or thereabouts. There are lots of people around today who like to think that because they bear the same surname as the Bard they must be descended from him - but this is mere wishful thinking on the part of the gullible! Shakespeare is a fairly common name in Warwickshire and, almost certainly, there will be Shakespears living today who descend from other branches of the family stemming from before William, but this only makes him a collateral ancestor, not a direct one. There is a subtle but vital difference. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

From: roy.stockdill@btinternet.com > To cite another example, it's pretty certain historically that > William Shakespeare left no descendants beyond his granddaughter, Elizabeth, who died in 1670 or > thereabouts. There are lots of people around today who like to think that because they > bear the same surname as the Bard they must be descended from him - but this is mere > wishful thinking on the part of the gullible! Shakespeare is a fairly common name in Warwickshire > and, almost certainly, there will be Shakespears living today who descend from other > branches of the family stemming from before William, but this only makes him a collateral > ancestor, not a direct one."> I think perhaps the funniest example of a piece of wishful thinking re ancestry I've ever seen was years ago when I was a commissioning features executive in Fleet Street and I was offered an interview with a fairly unknown actress whose surname was BULLEN. This lady claimed to be a "direct descendant" of Queen Anne Boleyn!!! I couldn't resist gently pointing out to the writer who'd submitted the story that Anne Boleyn only had one child who was Elizabeth 1, and that if this actress descended from Anne Boleyn then she must also descend from her daughter Elizabeth - which would mean Elizabeth I wasn't the virgin queen we'd all been told at school that she was! -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE