VOTE Your Choice: To which 'Ruler' do genealogist most desire a paper trail relationship with? [closed]

+11 votes
710 views
VOTE for your Choice of Ruler, please...

Question: To which 'Ruler' listed below, do genealogist most desire a paper trail relationship with?

1. "Charlemagne"

2. "William the Conqueror"

3. "Edward III, King of England"

Thank you for your Vote!
closed with the note: Old question
in Genealogy Help by Bettye Carroll G2G6 Mach 5 (52.2k points)
closed by Darlene Athey-Hill
If people are to answer based on personal interests of course you will get trivial but widely varying answers. De gustibus non est disputandum. But if we are to answer as genealogists I see some logical points that can be made:

If you have a very recent royal connection, say one after Edward III, then:

1. You have something more unique. Most people with English ancestry will be descended from Edward III, and most Europeans from Charlemagne. Most will just not know exactly how, but some will. If you descend from any more recent monarch than Edward III you will also descend from Edward III and all the monarchs in his family tree before him.

2. Your genealogical work will for better or worse be done for you to a larger extent than for genealogists.

3. The more recent your royal connection the more royalty you will have in your known ancestry.
The only one I even know is the King. Obviously, he was a King.

Elvis is the King I want to be related to.
good one, Betty!
With the advent of the internet,and many more authoritative documents coming online, the magic of 'the royal line' has diminished (at least in my opinion). Those who have found a 'gateway' ancestor in their lines (and there are many, including myself) have found themselves transported immediately into the genealogical presence of the Plantagenet kings and their ancestors, including Charlemagne. I love the knowledge that I can prove these descents, but I love more the thrill of finding the parents of one of my ordinary ancestors. If I were to go for a royal descent, I'd like it to be someone less easy to prove, like Genghis Khan. I have a descent from Kuthen Khan of the Cumans, but not, as yet, from Genghis.
What a great question! I think #Charlemagne would be my choice of those three (ignoring Joe's comment "if you have Edward III, then you have the other two").

Happy New Year!

17 Answers

+19 votes
 
Best answer

If you have Edward III, then you have the other two.

Proven descents to Edward III can often be very elusive, while those to Henry I are much more common.

Martin Allen wrote:  "Why would I?"  I hear this response all the time from people when royal ancestry is discussed.  It is, interestingly, a very British attitude, and Martin, I knew you were UK based before I looked at your profile. It implies that having a royal connection, or desiring a royal connection, is something to be looked down on.  It is an interesting fact that Americans generally have a much easier time establishing a royal ancestry than someone in the UK.  So, the answer is:

1.  Because we are genealogists, and we want to trace all of our ancestors as far as possible.  Having a royal connection opens up centuries worth of new connections.

2.  Because the details of the lives of these ancestors are known.  It makes them much more interesting to read about, and learn about, than the the vast majority of our ancestors which are primarily just a name with some dates attached.

3.  Because they were directly involved in important historical events.  I have learned so much history about the US Civil War, the American Revolution, and medieval history because I have ancestors who participated in these events.  History is much more interesting because of these sorts of ancestors.

by Joe Cochoit G2G6 Pilot (255k points)
selected by Darlene Athey-Hill

1. John is the son of [private father][confident] 
2. [Private] is the son of John P Vickery Jr.[confident] 
3. John is the son of John P Vickery Sr.[confident] 
4. John is the son of Margaret (Haney) Vickery [confident] 
5. Margaret is the daughter of Joanna (Fleming) Haney[confident] 
6. Joanna is the daughter of Elizabeth (Cook) Fleming[confident] 
7. Elizabeth is the daughter of Joanna (Williams) Cook [confident] 
8. Joanna is the daughter of Elizabeth (Abbott) Williams [confident] 
9. Elizabeth is the daughter of Anne (Mauleverer) Abbott [confident] 
10. Anne is the daughter of Edmund Mauleverer [unknown confidence] 
11. Edmund is the son of James Mauleverer [confident]

12. James is the son of William Mauleverer [confident] 
13. William is the son of Edmund Mauleverer Knt. [unknown confidence] 
14. Edmund is the son of Robert Mauleverer [unknown confidence] 
15. Robert is the son of Jane (Conyers) Mauleverer [unknown confidence] 
16. Jane is the daughter of William Conyers [unknown confidence] 
17. William is the son of Alice (Neville) Conyers [unknown confidence] 
18. Alice is the daughter of William Neville KG [unknown confidence] 
19. William is the son of Joan (Beaufort) de Neville LG [unknown confidence] 
20. Joan is the daughter of John (Plantagenet) of Gaunt KG [unknown confidence]. My 19th Gr Gf= 21. John is the son of Edward (Plantagenet) of England [confident] . Charlemagne is the my 35th Gr. Gf;  Soon 20th Gr Gf Henricus (Edenham of that Ilk) de Edmundiston should be connected to: 

I ♥ WikiTree ! JPV IV :)

How wrong can you be. Where did I remotely suggest elitism? I can't say I've ever come across this British attitude uou describe. It is obviously a figment of the US imagination.

I am as interested in my 3x great grandfather from County Durham and his life as I am in Charlemagne.

As a genealogist I'm more interested in the lives of people, not how dar back I can go.
"Don Quixote" is fiction by the way, and in this work of fiction, when he made preposterous claims to "knights of chivalry" he was considered mad.  It's a great read that book although not that well translated.  There's but a small mention of the famous windmills but a book worth reading.

I'm no history expert, but I don't think Charlemagne or any of the Plantagenets are my direct ancestors.  There is no way anyone in my family would have let themselves been dislodged from their castle.  There must have been other human beings alive at that time.  Maybe there's a list of fools and idiots where I more likely could find my ancestors.  :D

@M Edmunds, I think you take the logic too far and make some errors. I will point them out BECAUSE I like some parts of your post, but fear many people will miss those parts.

I agree that "anyone who had English ancestors living in medieval times automatically has royal ancestry whether they know it or not." But I can not understand how anyone not realizing this must be elitist.

It is not true however to go one step further and say that "All those basket weavers, blacksmiths, and bonnet makers share this ancestry". They did not have as many traceable ancestors as we do, and the classes really did mingle less in their time. So historical lower class people might have had Roman imperial ancestors (untraceable) but not normally medieval royalty. With every generation now though, we double the number of traceable ancestors, including gentry, and gentry normally had some aristocratic and royal blood. My children have all my ancestors and all of my wife's for example. I suggest you read the appendix to Ian Mortimer's well-known biography of Edward III about this.

I do agree that many people take positions on subjects like this which are political, and that "you can't take merit or pride yourself for being born working class any more than you can take pride in the opposite". :)

Obviously my post was not as clear as I had intended and has been misinterpreted.

When I referred to elitism, it was in response to an earlier post making the point that “making a big deal of [royal ancestry] is … considered elitist.” So I was trying to say that it’s a shame people who mention their royal ancestry are perceived as elitist or snobbish (though they may well genuinely be so) because sometimes people are just genuinely excited about discovering their history. And it doesn’t make them better than anyone else, because we all have the same ancestry. So just because you haven’t found your paper trail to a well-documented royal or famous person doesn’t mean you don’t have it. You just haven’t found it yet. I’ve learned not to mention my research to non-genealogists, because it seems to immediately raise hackles, and it’s hard to explain how commonplace these descents really are. But in a forum like this, snobbery, real or perceived (prompting the reverse snobbery of “who cares?”), should not cast a shadow on what should be a free and open discussion of genealogy.

And Andrew, given that you are familiar with Mortimer’s book, and are aware that every generation back exponentially widens the number of ancestors one has while at the same time narrowing the pool of available people in the gene pool, it makes no sense to say that lower class people are not normally descended from medieval royalty.  Mortimer clearly points out that they are and explains the mathematics behind it. It may be harder to prove other than by using mathematics. But the premise is still valid. Granted, you do need to dig harder to get the paper trails. Still, I find that if you can take even one thread reliably back to the 16th century, you are almost certain to discover royal lines. Fortunately, every year, more information is available to push those dead ends back further. 

As a thought experiment, consider the reverse scenario. Try to imagine, let’s say, a modern bin man with English ancestry going back 6 or 7 centuries with no Norman ancestry (Norman being a shortcut for the bulk of royal links after 1066). You will soon see how improbable a scenario that would be. It would mean that nobody in his immediate ancestry had ever married the distant cousin of a distant cousin of a distant cousin with a shared Norman ancestor. In just 20 generations back you would be looking at over 4 million slots, many of them overlapping because (see the diamond theory of ancestors) overlaps would start occurring with regularity as the gene pool becomes smaller, starting about 10 generations back and shrinking thereafter. By 26 generations back, or approximately the 12th century, you would be looking at 268,435,456 ancestors, most overlapping, so that 80% of the population of England at that time would be on his family tree. And none of them Normans? That would be freakish indeed. So I hope this makes it clearer what I mean about our common roots and the ubiquitous nature of royal descents.

 

Yes I figure that is what you meant, but you extended back this argument which applies to a modern bin man, back to historical artisans. That does not quite work, or at least muddies the point.
If by historical artisans you mean tradespeople of several hundred years ago, no I did not mean that. It would be much more difficult to do that than to do the backward route tradesperson - yeoman - landed gentry - minor aristocracy, etc. It would be very interesting if one could eventually get trails to historical tradespeople, but I despair of that for the present.
Artisans in guilds were often wealthy people. Remember they were not so common, and it was a closed shop. Rural peasants did not have the freedom to become a professional artisan normally. In fact artisans were often people with some blue blood. Some appear in records, for example in cities like London. Eventually indeed it is often these families who we hit first when tracing a promising line because some of them had a bit of gentry in them.
Yes this is quite true. The people I was classing as landed gentry were generally in this group.
+11 votes
Edward III, King of England
by Bettye Carroll G2G6 Mach 5 (52.2k points)
+10 votes
King Arthur
by Living Anonymous G2G6 Mach 5 (51.0k points)
Camelot! Guinevere and Excalibur! :-)
+11 votes
Queen Boadicea
by Shirley Dalton G2G6 Pilot (527k points)
"Victorious" :-)
I'd be very happy with a documented connection to ANY Anglo-Saxon living in England before 1066.

Hi Janet Gunn, thank you for your comment!
 

Edward the Confessor (Wessex-358) (1002-1066) 
and
William the Conqueror (Normandie-32) (1028-1087

 

1. William I is the son of Robert (Normandie) de Normandie 
2. Robert I is the son of Richard (Normandie) de Normandie  
3. Richard II is the son of Richard (Normandie) de Normandie 
This trail tells us that Richard I is the great grandfather of William I.

1. Edward, King is the son of Emma (Normandie) of England 
2. Emma is the daughter of Richard (Normandie) de Normandie 
This trail tells us that Richard I is the grandfather of Edward, King (Wessex-358) Of England.

      :-)

If you have Plantagenet ancestry you can claim quite a few Saxons. Not all Saxons supported Harold II and those who supported William kept their lands. They also married into the Norman elite. Lucy of Lincolnshire, daughter of Thorold is the best known of these, but there are others.
I'd be disappointed if I don't have native British ancestry pre-1000BC.
+20 votes
I haven't the remotest interest in a paper trail to any of them (or any other Ruler).  Why would I?
by anonymous G2G6 Pilot (273k points)
Nor me! Far more interested in the unknown than the known.
Is it your hope, then, to trace your ancestry to Thomas Crapper?
And that's the point.  I don't "hope" to "claim" anybody.  Just my own (much) closer ancestry.  What am I going to do with royal information?  Go to a dinner-party and say "I descend from Edward III, you know", as if that somehow makes me special?

Maybe this 'very British attitude' is because we have had kings and queens in our country for so many hundreds of years, we don't attach the same genealogical importance to them any more.  Our focus has shifted to our own families.  If you find a royal or noble ancestor, it might generate a prickle of interest - but if you don't, no need to lose sleep over the fact.
I agree with other posters that there are some strange generalizations being made about the differences between Brits and Americans. I am Australian, and I work a lot on medieval genealogy. Anyone who works on that subject will know that American enthusiasm for British ancestors has been a great help in supporting much of the real research on medieval genealogy. There are big differences between people in both countries of course. It is not easy to generalize.
+10 votes
As someone who is supposed to have a possible relationship to all of them , I'd rather not have a paper trail.  I don't have a fondness toward any of them.
by Anonymous Roach G2G6 Pilot (196k points)
+7 votes

Charlemagne

by Peter Roberts G2G6 Pilot (688k points)
Richardson gives several such descents in that appendix. FWIW, although no one seriously doubts the connection through the Vermandois, I understand there is no primary document to explain the exact descent. If I recall correctly Heribert I and II are simply assumed to be father and son. Mathilda does not rely on the Vermandois descent for hers. The Ancestry of Henry II website if a good source for knowing the weak points.
Richardson gives sources for both Heribert I, and Heribert II.

There are 230 views, and many comments for this question, "Vote for your Choice." There is a lot of interest in the Plantagenet family history. WikiTree has a 'House of Plantagenet,'

Andrew, do you have any suggestions as to how WikiTree can benefit from the interest in the Plantagenet family history?

Thanks
Yes sources for who they were, but I think none that actually name their relationship to each other. For more information see http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/herib001.htm

Concerning how to take advantage of interest in Plantagenets, what comes to mind first is what we should be careful of in genealogy, which is the very common problem of genealogists stating things to be proven when they are not. So it would not necessarily help Wikitree if lots of people start editing royal profiles to try to create more connections than there are for example.

But maybe more positively, one thing Wikitree does do well, for anyone willing to put their proven genealogy into the database, is help find links.  (Relationship finder, Connection finder.) Often these will not be descents from royalty at first, but connections which include marriage links are common. The danger is that many of the connections Wikitree finds are still wrong, and so to make all these tools work we need more editors who are willing to test these links on their family, with a critical eye. It will definitely mean finding wonderful links and then breaking them, for any genealogists willing to do that.

But to prove one good link, a good genealogist has to first disprove many dodgy ones.
'Stating things to be proven' is common on WikiTree. I added my personal kin by connecting to kin that was already on WikiTree. Now, I am going back adding sources to lines my family is connected with. I am learning a lot as I go. I have always wanted my line to be based on supporting records, and I have found WikiTree wants the same, 'credible sources!'

Sorry, I do not understand your comment, 'definitely mean finding wonderful links and then breaking them.'
Yes, not very clear words from me there. I think a lot of genealogists will however have experiences like me: You get into genealogy wanting to learn more about all the great family connections your family thinks are real. In my case it was Doctor Livingstone and Admiral Nelson. You then prove that these family stories are actually definitely wrong, and learn that many Livingstone and Nelson families all have the exact same family story. But that is only the start. Working a bit harder you start to find REAL things, that are just as interesting, or even more - things you would not have known before. A good genealogist needs to be willing to reject treasured family stories in order to get to real ones which are better.

Hence my mixed feelings about genealogist's interest in famous families generally. Some genealogists, unfortunately, are more interested in confirming stories that have been handed down, or desperately aiming to prove a link to someone famous.

I am also not sure if I was clear about my point concerning the connection finding tools of Wikitree. When you use them, you will find surprising links. But I have learned to use this as a way of quality controlling Wikitree. I look for suspicious links such as merged profiles that for example seem to combine records in different continents. There are lots and the tools helps us find them.
Andrew ,  I feel the same.  When I was about 16. I had an Aunt who talked about nothing else but the people we were related to.  Not the ones plain old everyday people.  Royalty .  What societies we could belong to.  Who she could impress.  Me it was the 60s I was concerned about other things.          I possibly have connections to royalty on both my parents sides.  Presidents and English Prime ministers also.  But... the lack of records from the 1600 and 1700s in America are just not there.                                     As you say I also have learned so much.  So much since I have been on wiki tree and researching for sources.  I find that more rewarding.  I like who my everyday people were.  They stepped up.  They took care of family and Country. No matter what side the chose in what ever conflict.  I am proud of them.                                                                                                            So I will most likely never have  solid paper trail. Or certainty.  I won't do DNA.  I will have the satisfaction that I know more about why I am who I am.  They lived through things I could never imagine.  I could never ask a King to spare my head.  Or they faced danger and died.  In alot of ways that is more important than being born into Royalty.  I have probably done a few merges that are suspicious myself.  But I learned not to merge haphazardly.  I try to find everything I can now before I merge.  The good thing about this site is the leading to do good research.  Please excuse the wonky way of my paragraphs ,  I'm having trouble with my hands.  And trying to fixing it could make it more wonky.
I see DNA testing, which I have worked on a lot, as just like proper paper trail testing. It leads to real facts and links you might not have expected and history you never knew about. To give another example from my genealogy, my father's family, as you might guess are Lancasters. Many Lancaster families have decided this is a royal surname because they know there were "Lancasters" in the royal family (Henry IV, V, VI etc). This was another area where from the very beginning the family stories fell apart but much more information came to light. My Lancasters have a Y DNA signature shared by nearly all men with surnames like Satterfield or Satterthwaite, which come from a little hamlet in the Lake District. It lead me to learn a lot about that area, which happens to be where a lot of real Lancaster families come from. That was the first thing which pushed me to start learning about medieval genealogy and how to understand those old records. I also had a very nice walking holiday in the Lake District where I was surprised to find one of my webpages on these subjects being referenced in an info leaflet at an ancient church! :)

Anyway, DNA is just another type of fact. I would not be too quick to dismiss it.
As I understand, DNA 'on a genealogy web site', there is no where to go without a paper trail!

I was disappointed to learn, for a female, auDNA only traces back, with any worthy information, four or five generations. For mtDNA, daughter to daughter, it so happens the spelling of my mother's maiden name changed through out history making it difficult to follow her with supporting records.

As for my paper trail, the information I was given as a young woman is holding true, but I can not go far with my female DNA. My goal is to leave behind me a proper, paper trail that will hold true for the men in our family that may decide to do their DNA at some point.
I have no males to use for DNA.  My father is dead and my brother is not around.  My father left notes he made when he got home from Korea.  They sometimes give me a direction. He had several family bibles when I was a kid.  But I have no idea where they have gone.   I could never understand as a child why he read them so much.  Boy Howdy I do now.
They are really kicking it.  I is exciting.
+19 votes
A genealogist wants a paper trail to their real ancestors, whoever they may be.
by Nan Starjak G2G6 Pilot (376k points)
+9 votes
Hi Andrew Lancaster!

Thank you, for your comment! "Your work will for better or worse be done for you to a larger extent than for genealogists."

Isn't that the beauty of WikiTree? We build on each other's work! If one does it, and we can hook on to his work, then we all have done it together.

     :-)
by Bettye Carroll G2G6 Mach 5 (52.2k points)
Sure but given the nature of the question it is relevant to point out that most people feel somewhat differently when they know they are working on their own ancestors. If you are Prince William you probably grow up thinking your whole family tree is already done or being looked at by the best genealogists around. (Actually I guess he has gentry ancestors who will likely have mysteries etc. But he will have to go back further than most of us to hit them.)
Yes, Andrew, I agree with your point! Thank you, for taking the time to reply to the question!
    Best Regards :-)
+12 votes
I'd much rather have a paper trail to document my Jewish ancestors' relationship to Jacob.
by Jana Shea G2G6 Mach 3 (35.0k points)
+9 votes

For me, I would have to say William the Conqueror. I remember reading about him and his wife (cousin) Matilda of Flanders. I believe it would be an honor to be connected to Royality.

by Rebecca Walker G2G6 (7.4k points)
Thank you, Rebecca Walker, for you comment!

I am told this is a good line to William the Conqueror, Not the Best Line, but a good line.

    :-)

1. Elizabeth is the daughter of Edward (York) of York [unknown confidence]
2. Edward IV is the son of Richard (York) of York [unknown confidence]
3. Richard is the son of Anne (Mortimer) of York [unknown confidence]
4. Anne is the daughter of Roger Mortimer [unknown confidence]
5. Roger is the son of Philippa (Plantagenet) Mortimer [unknown confidence]

next page ...

1. Philippa is the daughter of Lionel (Plantagenet) of Antwerp KG [confident] 
2. Lionel is the son of Edward (Plantagenet) of England [confident] 
3. Edward III is the son of Edward (Plantagenet) of England 
4. Edward II is the son of Edward (Plantagenet) of England 
5. Edward I is the son of Henry (Plantagenet) of England [confident] 
6. Henry III is the son of John (Plantagenet) of England 

7. John is the son of Henry (Plantagenet) of England 

8. Henry II is the son of Matilda (Normandie) de Anjou [confident] 
9. Maud is the daughter of Henry (Normandie) of England 
10. Henry I is the son of Guillaume (Normandie) de Normandie 

+7 votes

Hi, John Atkinson,
Found Richardson source for numbers 18 and 19, see below.
Thanks again, John! Great work you do on Wikitree!
Best Regards
  

* '''"Royal Ancestry" 2013 by Douglas Richardson Vol. V. page 495'''
'''BAUDOUIN''' II ''The Bald'', Count/Marquis of Flanders, 879-918, Count of Artois, Count of Boulogne, 898? -918, etc, 2nd and eldest surviving son and heir, born about 863-865. He married in 884 '''AELFTHRYTH (or ELSTRUDE) OF WESSEX''', daughter of Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, by Ealswith, daughter of Aethelred Mucil, earldorman of the Gaini. She was born about 870. They had two sons, Arnulf (I) [Count/Marquis of Flanders] and ADALOLF (or Adolf), and two daughters, Ealhswid and Ermetrude. BAUDOUIN II, Count/Marquis of Flanders, died in 918, probably 10 Sept. His widow, AElfthryth (or Elstrude), died 7 June 929. He and his wife were buried in the abbey of Saint-Pierre, Gand.

by Bettye Carroll G2G6 Mach 5 (52.2k points)
edited by Bettye Carroll
That covers 19 but no mention of 18?
Yes, John, the D. Richardson source covers both number 18, and 19.
My goal is to help find a credible source for any profile that does not have one already. This Richardson source mentions both Baudouin II, number 19 and Baudouin's son Adaloff number 18.
     :-)
No 18 in the list further up is Adaloff's supposed daughter Maud de St Pol, and I don't think there are any sources for her being his daughter?
+10 votes
For me, no doubt Edward III, King of England. As was  mentioned here, as a genealogist I'm also a lover of history, and love connecting my family to historical people and events.  It isn't so much being connected to someone famous or Royal but, rather, the path it takes for me to make the connection, and verifying it along the way. That is the fun part for me.
by James Stratman G2G6 Pilot (101k points)
+7 votes

Charlemagne is pretty popular

by Paul Evans G2G2 (2.9k points)
+4 votes

God save the QUEEN! Sorry I thought it was funny.

by James Collins G2G6 Mach 6 (60.1k points)
+4 votes
I don't have a desire to be related to any of them. I am just curious about in who my ancestors were. I would love to know who my Great Great Grandfather John Spencer (Spencer-13664) was. If he is descended from royalty, good. If not, who cares, he is still family and just as important to me.
by Joan Whitaker G2G6 Pilot (168k points)
+2 votes
I guess I just have to set myself up as a target! :)

I have no desire to have any connection to those persons in this world who have set themselves up to lord it over others and whose relatives throughout history have committed many heinous acts to maintain their position of superiority, who have stolen the land and the livelihood of others for their own benefit and who in the final analysis are the biggest criminals of all.

I live in a republic and royalty is an anachronism that should be done away with.
by David Loring G2G6 Pilot (125k points)

Related questions

+14 votes
6 answers
+13 votes
5 answers
688 views asked Sep 6, 2016 in The Tree House by Living Anonymous G2G6 Mach 3 (35.5k points)
+1 vote
4 answers
514 views asked Sep 28, 2018 in The Tree House by Living Farrar G2G6 Mach 1 (15.6k points)
+4 votes
3 answers
210 views asked Dec 21, 2020 in The Tree House by Gaile Connolly G2G Astronaut (1.2m points)
+5 votes
2 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...