Gary Boyd Roberts' latest work The Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants

+18 votes
3.8k views

The Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants..by Gary Boyd Roberts is now available from GPC. Has anyone seen it or reviewed it? I'm interested in purchasing a copy but would like to know the immigrants actually covered. 

Thanks, Maureen

in The Tree House by Maureen Deegan G2G5 (5.1k points)
reopened by Ellen Smith
I too would like to see the list of people. I would think that for commercial reasons they would simply post it. You see a name you recognize, and buy.

Edit: well, NOT buy at that price! And certainly NOT buy without the list!

i'm happy with my investment in Richardson's works. You can search Google Books copy of Magna Carta Ancestry. I ordered directly from his site:  http://www.royalancestry.net/

$75 for a used copy of a 2018 work (not sure how it got used so fast): https://www.amazon.com/Descents-Immigrants-Themselves-Descendants-Introduction/dp/0806320753

I think i'd try libraries first to see if I wanted to invest in it. I tried finding it through WorldCat.org, but best I found was a 2014 reprint of a similar 2004 work (600 Immigrants) with a 2008 Addendum: http://www.worldcat.org/title/royal-descents-of-600-immigrants-to-the-american-colonies-or-the-united-states-who-were-themselves-notable-or-left-descendants-notable-in-american-history-with-a-2008-addendum-coda-and-final-addition/oclc/905092250&referer=brief_results
Richardson and Roberts are two entirely different types of works. I have Richardson and the previous edition of Roberts. Roberts is not a reference work, its just something you look at once to see if there is some line you should seriously look at.

The problem with libraries is that my local one doesn't do genealogy (*), so I have to use interlibrary loan, and genealogy libraries do do that, so I have to order up scans of predetermined pages.

*Footnote: unless I or somebody else gives them our old copies. I must remember to give them the 1st edition of Roberts.

ah - thanks! I am fortunate in that the "RELIC Room" at Bull Run Library is not far from me (it has a copy of the 600 Immigrant one I found on WorldCat, but not the new one that Maureen asked about).

I recently just uncovered a line, that connects our family to numberous
Kings and Queens, It just continues to branch out so numberous they are, it is mind boggeling.  Of course they have much information to many of them, but no definitive connection to our family yet.  The line shows direct ancestors. I was curious as to how far back WikiTree goes on Royals.  These lead back to some the years 400 and 500, and of course much earlier.
The earliest truly reliably connected ancestor of European royalty is Arnulfing-2. Some suggestions for his ancestors are almost surely correct, but we truly don't know the exact (or even approximate) path. Charlemagne is clearly descended from a Merovingian, but we don't have real evidence for any path. Arnulfing-2's wife is also clearly connected back to real people we know of, but all paths are equally conjectural.

Gary Boyd Roberts isn't perfect.  I share a Mauduit cousin with Peter Lawford.
 

The following is taken from pages 192-193 from The Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants by Gary Boyd Roberts, Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, 1993.

1. Edward III, King of England, d.1377 = Philippa of Hainault

2. Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York = Isabel of Castile

3. Constance Plantagenet = Thomas le Despencer, 1st Earl of Gloucester

4. (illegitimate by Edmund Holand, 4th Earl of Kent) Eleanor Holand = James Touchet (or Audley), 2nd Baron Audley

5. Contance Touchet (or Audley) = Robert Whitney

6. Eleanor Whitney = John Puleston

Problem is that Eleanor Whitney's mother was Robert Whitney's wife, Elizabeth Vaughan rather than Constance Touchet.

Some very interesting and supplementary ancestors up her line but not as promised



 

That was 25 years ago.  Everybody showed that line then, except Bartrum, and it wasn't sorted out until 2008.

Bartrum gave both Ellens to the Vaughan wife

http://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index.php/Family:Whitney,_Robert_(c1436-1494)

but we give them one each.  It might not be over.

edit: link needed the closing paren; it goes to the right page now.

Reopened the discussion because I expect that others will we want to see this or discuss (although Maureen ended up purchasing the books sight unseen, and may not want to continue getting email notifications about this).

Maureen: I think you can edit your original question to uncheck the box about notifications.
Loyd I apologize for jumping into an old conversation which you remarked: "Problem is that Eleanor Whitney's mother was Robert Whitney's wife, Elizabeth Vaughan rather than Constance Touchet."

I uncovered this error and it's in a lot of other tree's including FamilySearch. I know because it's one of my lines.

I've got both Roberts and Richardson sources and I prefer the latter just on ease of access to specific lineage information alone.  Additionally, Boyd's format the way the information is presented is confusing. I've found the specific Gateway Ancestor's but they're the last 1/4 of Vol.1 (p734). 3/4 of Vol.1 is a collection of famous people's pedigrees which are tied back into the Gateway Ancestors. But the Wikitree application serves that purpose electronically every time we run a 'relationship-to-me', one of my personal favorites. I hope I'm not offending anyone by preferring Richardson to Boyd. I'm certain there are behind-the-scene reasons for the lack of indexes in Boyd's work. Cheers.

Thanks Leigh Anne!

Lloyd: The profile for Robert Whitney (married 1st Elizabeth/Alice Vaughan, 2nd Constance Tuchet) covers most everything (except citing Gary Boyd Roberts - I don't have a copy of The Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants, or of The Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants, and I too would not prefer it over Richardson's works). The daughter of Robert who married Puleston is the daughter of Elisabeth Vaughan. His daughter by Constance Tuchet married Thomas Vaughan. See Elinor (Whitney) Vaughan's profile for the recap, citing Richardson.

Hi Leigh Anne

I haven't looked at Richardson precisely - there are many different configurations of this family, none which make a lot of sense or particularly agree with each other.  

In looking at what they have here, I suppose that Richardson makes sense if that who it is based on considering the ages of the children of Ellen and Eleanor - (or should I say Puleston or other Vaughn lol).

I had cut off my line in myheritage tree and replaced Constance - and I see from what is Wiki, the advantage of her pedigree hasn't been completely exploited and should be at some point for what it has to offer as another bridge upward with some interesting upticks.

I do notice if you look downstream to the Mauduits for example, I do see it a a mess at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Robinson-8621 for clearly this Ball and Wells are misplaced.

She actually has a more distinguished line below than that of her half sister, so that is an upside of the resolution as well.
Hi Liz

It looks like your reply came to me just as I replied to Leigh Anne

So it looks like Wikitree conforms with the concern I made some time ago.  Not that it is without a lot of confusion or dissonance.  Bartram throws in Eustace + Trussel for some strange reason into the mix, Robert's father as his son lol

 it was the age of the children of the children  that sold me on this solution. for example https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/puleston-john-1492-1551

I wasn't personally taken aback as it was not a particular need of my family tree and actually without Boyd, I would not have known about the Whitney line and all that is interesting above it that mingles with other elements of the family and the Vaughan line adds some nice supplementary approaches upstream to which the Touchet would have actually been redundant.  Her line needs more development at some point
It takes tenacity and patience, but erroneous parents can be removed on FamilySearch. Ideally, known correct parental assignment can be done first, thereby making the switch over easier to put in place.

4 Answers

+8 votes
Richardson limits himself to pre-1700 immigrants to the area that later became the USA.  Roberts includes immigrants to Canada and post-1700 immigrants.

Richardson supposedly includes primary sources for every generation of a lineage, but not always.  Roberts limits himself to published secondary sources.  

So if Roberts simply summarizes Richardson's broken Cudworth lineage, for example, he will simply copy Richardson's error without any evaluation or discussion.
by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (103k points)
John, good to know,with only a couple of copies available and these only available in paperback. I'll keep my $75.00 for a bit. I'm waiting for the errata sheets on Roberts'  work  if nothing else. And for the "used" price to descend.
Someone with command of this pivotal (potential) weakness should write the editors at NEHGS, since they're advertising the work. They might write a (indexed, please) review of the state of the problem and pull the ad, if warranted.
+6 votes

Ancestry.com has the 2004 (600 immigrant names)  edition available if you have a subscription with them. I was looking at them last night. I would be curious to see the new additions with this latest edition. I'm almost tempted to buy this latest 2018 edition. I would want to see what new names have been added first though. The previous 600 immigrant  names edition does not list any of my direct ancestors.

https://genealogical.com/2018/04/09/announcing-the-royal-descents-of-900-immigrants/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-vFTLk3GJ8

by James Stratman G2G6 Pilot (101k points)
edited by James Stratman
There is an an ad in the most recent American Ancestors Magazine published by NEHGS which gives a partial list of the new names.  The only one that pertained to me was Winthrop.
+6 votes

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vRyGo6aelTcJ:nationalsocietyofsaintsandsinners.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Gateway-Ancestors-Proved-and-Disproved.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de&client=firefox-b-d

<!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} <![endif]-->
by Frances Piercy-Reins G2G6 Mach 8 (86.1k points)
+3 votes
I purchased the book when it first came out in 2018. I believed I purchased it from the NEHGS. If not I purchased it through Amazon. I'm pleased with it as it provides 'clues,' but not necessarily proven. I've already used it as a secondary/support source for wiki tree and other groups that I work with in genealogy. I believe if you Google the book and request information on additional listings it'll provide some perhaps not all of the additional descendants. Keep in mind that it's not accepted by gateway groups and sources are secondary.
by Carol Baldwin G2G Astronaut (1.1m points)
edited by Carol Baldwin

Related questions

+2 votes
1 answer
+8 votes
2 answers
+8 votes
1 answer
+110 votes
157 answers
+23 votes
4 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...