Is it highly unlikely I would be a GG GS of 16 of the 26 Surety Barons?

Question

I know one is in question and one had an "uncertain" tag. Just curious.  Thx

Answer 1

The English aristos were a close-knit bunch, who all married each other and then married their cousins.  So yes, there are several Gateway colonial immigrants descended from 16 Sureties.

And of course you could be descended from more than one Gateway.

Or none, because there are many more fake Gateways than real ones.  But your tree has Red privacy, so that's your secret.

Comments

RJ:  is there a list of the Gateways with 16 Sureties?

---

Cudworth and Bolles are my gateways thus far. I went back and ran them again and Lacy, Mowbray and Ros all had John Warren as a Gateway. Lannallei had John Albree and Quincy had James Knapp. I always thought John Warren was not a gateway. Albree I know is through DNA, though know one with credentials has publicly proven it, as far as I know. Knapp I never have seen as a gateway. If this is the case, and John Warren and James Knapp/Knopp are showing as "gateways" in my  lines to Sureties, doesn't that mean there is a mistake somewhere in the WT database?

Thanks, Jim

---

We haven't got a list yet, but we're working on it.  Some names I'd expect to see are William Skepper, Mary Joan Somerset, Philip & Thomas Nelson.

PS. Am currently stuck on 15 for the Nelsons.  Somerset 16, missing Lanvallei.  Skepper 16, missing Huntingfield.  William Bladen probably 17, but there may be a snag in proving the Geoffrey de Say line.

---

A mistake somewhere?  You could say that :)

All recognised gateways should have project badges, but some haven't been done yet.

But they should all at least have a Gateway Ancestors category tag.  However, a few people have snuck into the category who shouldn't have.

Bolles looks to be descended from at least 11 Sureties.  But the Relationship Finder tends to find the bad lines and then it doesn't show the good ones.

---

Thank you for the Bolles information. I would imagine the relationship finder looks for the shortest route and if the shortest route includes John Warren, it is going to use that and ignore ones that have a valid gateway as it's source.

I did, this afternoon, do some research on John Warren and found nothing that would confirm that he is connected to Royalty or the Barons. Certainly, the Warrennes are royalty ,but as of now, there is nothing that I can find, that connects John Warren, [1585, Nayland, Suffolk Eng.], to the Barons.

As the NEHGR 64:355 says, John Warren's line goes John [1555] 1) Elizabeth Scarlett, 2.) Rose 3.) Rose Riddlesdale; John [1525] 1.) ? 2.) Agnes (or Anne) Howlet, 3.) Margaret Firmett; Robert [1485]  Margaret; _______  (father of the foregoing Robert and a Thomas). It is probable that this line of Warrens intersects with a Royal line, but it has not been determined as of yet, as far as I am aware.

In the line presented on WT, there is no "gateway plaque" on John Warren-238...only a PGM. The next three generations follow what I found in the NEHGR. Funny thing is, that in one generation (from 3-4) the Warrens go from living on the East coast of England all the way to outside of Liverpool. Also the information becomes more royal and full. The name changes to Warenne, in generation 4, from John Warren, immigrant, which is plausible, but I can not find a Wiston, Nayland, Suffolk, England on a map. Going further back, all the Warrens are from near Liverpool.

Is there anyway that a profile can be flagged NOT to be included in a relationship calculation...or can you run more than one relationship path? I seriously think it is going to take some serious inquiry to find out how, and if, John Warren's (and Dr. Joseph and Dr. John Warren, both famous doctors during the Revolution and were Warren's G GSs) line extends to the Baron's.   

Thanks again for your input

---

Well WikiTree didn't invent this stuff.  It's often said that Henry Ford invented the assembly line, but actually, genealogists already had one and were using it to manufacture Hereditary Society applications and Chapter Ones of family books out of whole cloth.

To be fair, those things served their limited purpose back in their day and were never intended to have the circulation they now have.  Nobody thought their junk would get copied to LDS Family Group Sheets and microfilmed and computerised, totally disconnected from its "source" and context.

But now it's all out there, and it's all in here.  Without doing any research I'd guess offhand that Robert Warren is 2 people.   The only way to stop the RF using him is to split him.  Trouble is, there isn't just him, there are hundreds of them.

---

RJ, will you please explain "red privacy."  Thanks.

Cheryl

---

The OP's profile had a red padlock in the top corner, which meant there was no "Family Tree & Tools" tab to view his tree.  It's Orange now, but still no tree.

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Privacy#Private

 

Answer 2

Not unusual. In fact, probably every British person is descended from one or more of them. The Normans were very class conscious. You were not allowed to marry outside of your class, and, if you were a baron, you had to ask permission of the crown to marry. Given that there were probably no more than 250-300 Norman landowners at the time of the Domesday Book, that meant that you were going to get intermarriage and lots of it. I am descended from quite a few of the MC signatories (haven't counted) and, when I start tracing a new line, it seems that it's only a matter of time before I hit the same old surnames and I know where the line is going

Comments

Interesting question..  I discovered that I am related as a 20-23GG grandson of ten, a nephew of one, and a cousin to four. No relation of course for those with no dependents. I put the list on my profile [[Welshans-7]]

---

You can make Saher de Quincy your 24th great grandfather.  But the Relationship Finder won't go that far.

---

Thanks RJ.