PDA

View Full Version : Your most "out-there" family tree connections



BalkanKiwi
12-10-2016, 12:30 AM
I thought I'd create a thread about this topic, because I'm sure many people have an ancestor, ancestors or distant relatives who's origins are not believable or are crazy in comparison to the rest of the family tree.

I have quite a few, but to start off with I'll mention one of my Polynesian "ancestors". Geni has quite an extensive Polynesian tree, and because of this many people have ancestors listed that are myths and gods.

One of these is Rata/Laaka, depending on which countries mythology you follow. He is listed as a 34th great grandfather apparently born in 835 in
Tahiti, Windward Islands, French Polynesia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C4%81t%C4%81_(M%C4%81ori_mythology)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rata_(Tahitian_mythology)

I have no doubt I had ancestors from French Polynesia which is the migration path of Polynesians to New Zealand, however this individual is certainly not a "real person". It still amusing to see him in a family tree though, as its as close as someone with Polynesian ancestry would get to an ancestor during the pacific migration. :beerchug:

Baltimore1937
12-10-2016, 03:45 AM
Yeah, I've bumped into trees that go back to the Scandinavian god Odin and Irish unprovable kings of yore. I decided not to copy those trees, though, ha ha!

estevard
12-10-2016, 04:06 AM
... an ancestor, ancestors or distant relatives who's origins are not believable or are crazy in comparison to the rest of the family tree

You must be talking about (some) Ancestry.com family trees ...

My great-great-great grandfather, Archibald McFadyen, was a mere mortal (I've got his statutory death registration but no evidence yet of his birth) but someone else has uncovered that he was born before his parents and a century before his siblings ... now that's a good innings!

12965

Huitzilopochtli
12-10-2016, 06:23 AM
One source cites a source claiming direct descent from Charlemagne along the male line. I1 doesn't seem very likely the be Charlemagne's Y haplogroup.

evon
12-10-2016, 10:21 AM
Haha, yeah I have the god Njord in my family tree :p I usually dont trust the sources beyond 1500's very much..

A Norfolk L-M20
12-10-2016, 12:18 PM
My example would be my unknown Y ancestor that travelled to England, but I bore people too much with that.

Documentary ancestors? My tree is weird. Not only have I so far failed to find even one genetic match, that correlates to a paper trail, and my WikiTree stands on it's own still disconnected from the community tree, but it lacks any famous or titled ancestors. Years ago, before Internet Genealogy, I did find links - documentary links through surname interests published in genealogical directories and magazines - to other English genealogists. Most 21st Century genetic matchers seem to be concentrated in the Americas etc. Any connections between appear to be remote. I've also never found a single heraldic link - so I can't argue that I'm descended from Canute, Alfred, William I, nor a cousin of Elizabeth Windsor. Statistically, yes - but no found famous or powerful ancestors, not as much as a Squire.

So my most "way out" recorded ancestors? I quite like the convicts. A great great great grandfather that was in Norwich Castle Gaol. The great great great grandfather that was transported off to Van Diemans's Land for stealing two cattle. Then there were the many paupers and single mothers and workhouse inmates. My great great grandmother that had to wear a yellow jacket of shame in the workhouse. a series of generations in one Norfolk village (Swanton Morley)where most generations had illegitimate children, including one 4 x great grandmother that somehow managed to have six children without ever marrying. What was her story? Then you see, the paternal ancestors of a certain Abraham Lincoln just happened to also live in that same Norfolk village, so hey, who knows?

https://paulbrooker.posthaven.com/my-family-and-abraham-lincolnswanton-morley-ancestry-abraham-lincoln-family-tree-ancestor

Instead of famous or rich, my ancestors were the English rural working class, descended primarily no doubt, from the poorly recorded English medieval peasantry. However, I quite like that.

A Norfolk L-M20
12-10-2016, 12:33 PM
I've seen Boadicea claims. Challenge them and either they've completely recorded two thousand years of ancestry within six weeks on Ancestry.com, or they've based it on "I paid a company to do it and they sent me a certificate saying so" - sometimes based on nothing more than statistical probability, haplotype, or even hair colour!

I don't recall English parish registers stretching back to the First Century AD.

Judith
12-10-2016, 03:49 PM
I have seen on a tree who included my GGM in Ancestry which goes back to Alfred the Great https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great
So as an even more newbie then, I browsed his tree and the individuals list to find my GGM and found the king. Then I contacted him to ask was he related to my GGM. But he was not, it was a relation by marriage to his wife.

So I am not descended from Alfred!

PLogan
12-10-2016, 04:12 PM
I have seen on a tree who included my GGM in Ancestry which goes back to Alfred the Great https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great


There are times when doing genealogy research that I feel like some of these ancestors descend from Homer the Simpson!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Simpson


:P

vettor
12-10-2016, 05:25 PM
I have not seen anything weird really ...but I have issues with the clerks/scribes of registries in unknowingly changing a persons surname .............the letter than ruins my search is the :
Long S

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s

It can become a T or an F and I have even seen it as a G

AJL
12-10-2016, 06:05 PM
Most of the problems I've seen come from very early colonial US lines probably going back to Britain, usually where the wife's maiden name is unknown. That doesn't stop overly optimistic Ancestry "researchers" from adding surnames based on speculation, then attaching the person to a tree where the person's parents are supposedly from Kent, but their parents are from Shropshire, and their parents are in turn from Sussex -- extremely unlikely. The first rule of any actual research is to learn to admit when you don't know something.

Baltimore1937
12-10-2016, 06:33 PM
A person's tree is not the same thing as a person's pedigree, the way I use those terms anyway. Most people attached to a tree are probably not direct line ancestors. Alfred-the-Great was mentioned. If I chose to, I could (possibly) connect him to my tree. Anyone who is descended from Charlemagne could also do it. But he would not, in all probability, be my direct ancestor. Then again, maybe he is. One of those Louis Carolingians married an English princess, for an easy entry into that story.

By the way, there was a Norman princess (Emma "Flower of Normandy") who married an English king (Aethelred "The Unready", direct descendant of Alfred-the-Great). She later married King Canute "The Dane". She had children by both of them.

Saetro
12-10-2016, 07:34 PM
I had a DNA link (and therefore was related to) to someone who had entered their oldest known (i.e. documented) relative as Adam.
Looked back later and that line had been deleted from the DNA project involved.

Several people who are related, have trees that link to royalty of one sort or another via illegitimate children.
The classic one for me is Nesta, who was used to connect back to a line of Welsh kings.
I have no trouble with a Nesta being in their pedigree, just to what follows.
As if that Welsh name could belong to no one else, they have ascribed it to the Welsh princess Nest(a) ferch Rhys who had a series of well-documented partners.
This particular tree sought to add yet another liaison, not realising that her life was heavily watched and highly circumscribed.
There was no room for another involvement.
In reality, I'm sure it was someone else named Nest(a).

Came across lots more unsupported royal bastard children claims while looking at this one. A few were documented by the father at the time, or in a will, or by close associates around the time. Any others will need DNA proof to convince me.

A Norfolk L-M20
12-10-2016, 09:29 PM
Most of the problems I've seen come from very early colonial US lines probably going back to Britain, usually where the wife's maiden name is unknown. That doesn't stop overly optimistic Ancestry "researchers" from adding surnames based on speculation, then attaching the person to a tree where the person's parents are supposedly from Kent, but their parents are from Shropshire, and their parents are in turn from Sussex -- extremely unlikely. The first rule of any actual research is to learn to admit when you don't know something.
It's so easy to make a mistake if you don't know the area, and are working via internet resources from the other side of the world. People often underestimate how many people by the same name lived in a rural locality such as 18th century East Anglia. There are 650 villages in Norfolk. A lot of people rarely moved far very often. Parish records from before 1813 were very often lost, destroyed, damaged. There are stories of registers being used as kindling for fires. Others are illegible on pages.

So what I often see people doing is to look for ancestor Joe Bloggs in a particular parish. They find someone by the same name 20 miles away in another village, about the right age. What they don't realise is that the records are very incomplete, and that there were probably several Joe Bloggs in the county at that time. The only one surviving on an internet indexed record is not necessarily the right one. Indeed, as I said, many people didn't travel that far.

Then their mistake is repeated by all of the internet family tree copiers.

estevard
12-10-2016, 10:53 PM
... People often underestimate how many people by the same name lived in a rural locality such as 18th century East Anglia.

And it is not helped by the common naming convention:

1st son named after father's father
2nd son named after mother's father
3rd son named after father
1st daughter named after mother's mother
2nd daughter named after father's mother
3rd daughter named after mother

(pinched from https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/guides/forenames )

Unravelling cousin-enriched Cornish families, especially those living in tightly packed parishes around Penzance, is a nightmare. A quick browse through the original census returns for a village brings this home.

Saetro
12-11-2016, 02:20 AM
And it is not helped by the common naming convention:

1st son named after father's father
2nd son named after mother's father
3rd son named after father
1st daughter named after mother's mother
2nd daughter named after father's mother
3rd daughter named after mother

(pinched from https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/guides/forenames )

Unravelling cousin-enriched Cornish families, especially those living in tightly packed parishes around Penzance, is a nightmare. A quick browse through the original census returns for a village brings this home.

The naming convention you quote is a Scottish one.
Have you found it followed in Cornwall? I would be interested to know.
In general, my Cornish (lots of them - from Penwith and Kerrier) do not appear to have followed this scheme.
Although I rather wish they had. It has helped me sort out some Scottish families, although use there was not universal.
One problem is undocumented deaths around birth (stillborns or infants), who appear only as gaps in the parish registers.
I have found rare names used in certain Cornish family lines, so there is certainly something of the sort going on.

The marrying of cousins was noted for higher levels of Cornish society by the herald(s) making the Visitations around 1600. One commented that cousin marriage seemed to be frequent on that side of the Tamar. On average, demography requiring pedigree collapse suggests all of Britain had cousin marriage at around an average of 10th cousins (too far away to be noticed and too far away for deleterious damage.) In some very long pedigree runs I have found some cousin marriages at 4th and 11th cousin levels, but less such cousin marriage than the royal family, although tracing some lines, especially distaff ones, can be difficult.
What is evident is that patronymic surnames such as JOHNS, EDWARDS, HOSKINS, ANDREWS, HICKS and so on were very frequent, and that with first names often limited, confusion is rife.

Even when an unusual name comes into vogue, such as Bridget around St Buryan circa 1700, it tends to be fairly frequent in an area for a generation or two and then, contrary to naming patterns, drop out of favour.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9282-Your-most-quot-out-there-quot-family-tree-connections&p=202180&viewfull=1#post202180

So what I often see people doing is to look for ancestor Joe Bloggs in a particular parish. They find someone by the same name 20 miles away in another village, about the right age. What they don't realise is that the records are very incomplete, and that there were probably several Joe Bloggs in the county at that time. The only one surviving on an internet indexed record is not necessarily the right one. Indeed, as I said, many people didn't travel that far.

Then their mistake is repeated by all of the internet family tree copiers.

Some online record sources (including the one mainly used by newbies) do not make it easy to see what record coverage exists.
Here is a tip.
When you find a likely match, try to find every possible way you could be wrong.
Gradually eliminate them with evidence.
See how many are left.
Now, how confident are you about that link?

And yes, I have myself been caught out on occasion, but I am constantly improving.

There is an Australian country saying:"20,000 blowflies can't be wrong"
Blowflies are attracted to what is corrupted and unwholesome.
In other words, in this context, the popularity of a line is often no guide to its validity - often the contrary.

estevard
12-11-2016, 04:38 AM
The naming convention you quote is a Scottish one.
Have you found it followed in Cornwall? ...

I have seen it followed most closely in SE England. I have forebears from around Kent and Hampshire (rural peasants, pace A Norfolk L-M20) and they tended to follow the convention, albeit loosely.

As for my Cornish antecedents, the pattern seemed to apply mainly for the first born son and the first born daughter. Because five male forenames were favoured (Benjamin, Christopher, John, Richard & William) it resembles spaghetti rather than a pattern. And my main Cornish line is patronymic, JAMES.

Apologies to OP for drifting off topic. By way of contrition, there is a Cornish WALLISH in my tree which some optimistic researcher (I haven't checked recently to see if their tree is still on Ancestry) has linked to Clan WALLACE, and naturally enough to a chief thereof. Seems a stretch to me, but I have been known to sport egg on my face.

Lirio100
12-11-2016, 03:20 PM
At one time there had been a tree linking my German Jewish great grandfather to a Prince Henri of Orleans. Stayed up for a long time, it did, although as of this morning that part seems to have been taken down! I think the problem is that the surname Philipp can not only be spelled so many ways, and in those various forms it appears in several countries.

Erik
12-13-2016, 10:54 PM
I match with a Chinese man genetically, so that's my craziest match in general. Haven't found much specifically looking at family tree, but I'll keep you all posted when I find a crazy connection somewhere!

Dewsloth
12-14-2016, 12:17 AM
I am descended from Valentine Cook (aka Felty Koch; b. ~1730 London or Yorkshire depending on story) who left England for Holland as a boy and then later to Virginia.
Various long-standing family legends placed him as a relative of Captain James Cook, but that apparent myth now seems pretty well busted:


Extensive research in England has not found any records to show that Valentine Cook's father was a first cousin of Captain James Cook (1728-1779), the renowned explorer. Capt. Cook's father James had no known siblings. As well as having no known uncles, aunts, or first-cousins, Capt. Cook had no known brothers with male descendants to carry on the name, as his brother John died without children at age 23, and his other brother William died in infancy. Capt. Cook has no known descendants at all, as all his known children died either in infancy or without children.

Source: Letter, 24 Sep 1985, Alan A. Berends, MA, Hon. Keeper (Whitby Museum, Whitby, North Yorkshire, England), to Thomas W. Cook Jr. (Nashville, TN).

Also see http://www.winthrop.dk/cooktree.html (updated June 2011).

Tz85
12-14-2016, 12:17 AM
I'm absolutely related to the Angelos Greek dynasty of emperor's. Their are a few known out there's in much recent times, but it might be best not to say here lol

Kiln
12-17-2016, 07:29 AM
I had a black woman message me to say she was the descendant of an illegitimate child belonging to a distant maternal grandfather of mine & his wife's house slave.

That was awkward.

astondive
12-17-2016, 04:24 PM
I can only get back to 125 AD, with just a few well know ancestors:-

Relationship between Coel 'Old King Coal' King of Britain Coilus and me

Coel 'Old King Coal' King of Britain Coilus (-)
54th great-grandfather and
father of ...
Aiofe (-)
mother of ...
Murdeach Tireach (-)
father of ...
Eochy Moyvone (-)
father of ...
Niall Mor ('Niallof the nine hostages') Mor (-)
father of ...
Foghan Owen (-)
father of ...
Muredach Muredach (-)
father of ...
Fergus Mor Mac (-)
father of ...
Donart Donart (-)
father of ...
Gabhran Gabhran (-)
father of ...
Edhan Aidan (-)
father of ...
Eochaidh 1 Buidhe (-)
father of ...
Dongart King of Scotland King of Scotland (-)
father of ...
Dongart (Eugene V1), King of Scotland King of Scotland (-)
father of ...
Findon (Eochaid 11) King of Scotland King of Scotland (-)
father of ...
Eochaid 111 King of Scotland King of Scotland (-)
father of ...
Aodh Hugh Fionn, King of Scotland King of Scotland (-)
father of ...
Eochaid 1V King of Scotland King of Scotland (-)
father of ...
Alpin King of Scotland King of Scotland (-)
father of ...
Kenneth 1 King of Scotland Macalpin (-)
father of ...
Constantine 1 King of Scotland King of Scotland (-)
father of ...
Donald 11 King of Scotland Dasachtach (-)
father of ...
Malcolm 1 King of Scotland King of Scotland (-)
father of ...
Kenneth 11 King of Scotland King of Scotland (-)
father of ...
Malcolm 11 (Melkolf) King of Scotland Mackenneth (-)
father of ...
Bethoc (Beatrix) Princess of Scotland Princess of Scotland (-)
mother of ...
Duncan 1 King of Scotland King of Scotland (1013-)
father of ...
Malcolm 111 'Ceanmor(Longneck)' 1 King of Scotland King of Scotland (1033-)
father of ...
Matilda 'Atheling' Princess of Scotland Princess of Scotland (1079-)
mother of ...
Matilda (Maud) Empress of Germany Empress of Germany (1102-)
mother of ...
Henry 11 'Plantagenet' King of England Plantagenet (1133-)
father of ...
John 'Lackland' King of England King of England (2014-2014)
father of ...
Henry 111 King of England King of England (1206-)
father of ...
Edward 1 'Longshanks' King of England King of England (1239-)
father of ...
Edward 11 King of England (2014-)
father of ...
Edward 111 King of England (2014-1377)
father of ...
Lionel 'of Antwerp' Prince of England (1338-2014)
father of ...
Phiippa Plantagenet (1355-)
mother of ...
Elizabeth Mortimer (1370-1417)
mother of ...
Alice Philipa Camoys (Camois) (1400-)
mother of ...
Ralph Hastings (1435-1495)
father of ...
Isobel Hastings (1470-)
mother of ...
William Dyve (1480-)
father of ...
Sr.Lewis Dyve (1516-)
father of ...
Sr.John Dyve (1555-1608)
father of ...
Sr.Lewis Dyve (1599-1669)
father of ...
John Dyve (1634-1692)
father of ...
John Dyve (1676-)
father of ...
John Dive (1710-)
father of ...
Lewis Dive (1741-)
father of ...
Hugh Dive (1775-)
father of ...
Lewis Dive (1800-)
father of ...
Lewis George Dive (1824-)
father of ...
Henry Dive (1852-)
father of ...
Henry Aston Dive (1886-1895)
father of ...
John Aston Dive (1917-)
father of ...
This is me--- Terence Dive

C J Wyatt III
12-17-2016, 05:16 PM
I had a black woman message me to say she was the descendant of an illegitimate child belonging to a distant maternal grandfather of mine & his wife's house slave.

That was awkward.

Did she prove her case or was she reaching?

Jack

Kiln
12-17-2016, 11:54 PM
Did she prove her case or was she reaching?

Jack

DNA Match & case was solid.

Amerijoe
12-18-2016, 01:10 AM
Received a match notice from MyHeritage the other day. Could this be the match that unveils the mystery from whence I come? I waited with pentup anticipation as their page loaded into view. There listed before me, a perfect match, perfect as can be. Who? Who could this be? There printed for all to see, stood a name familiar as can be, it was 'Me' :)

AnnieD
12-18-2016, 11:03 PM
Who? Who could this be? There printed for all to see, stood a name familiar as can be, it was 'Me' :)
Agree you're pretty "out there"! :bounce: Tends to run in those Scottish to American family lines. :ban:

C J Wyatt III
12-19-2016, 01:26 AM
Received a match notice from MyHeritage the other day. Could this be the match that unveils the mystery from whence I come? I waited with pentup anticipation as their page loaded into view. There listed before me, a perfect match, perfect as can be. Who? Who could this be? There printed for all to see, stood a name familiar as can be, it was 'Me' :)

Full-sized or mini?

Calas
02-04-2017, 12:23 PM
I don't really have "out there" claims. Given my actual ancestry, which as A Norfolk L-M20 pointed out is a bit bourgeoisie, I can call on relation to some people of note. But stuff I can't find legitimate proof of is best avoided as if it carries the plague.

RobertCasey
02-04-2017, 02:29 PM
I have always discounted connections back to early royalty. Everybody seems to run into these unbelievable connections. However, they may some day become more of a reality than you would think. I just saw a presentation at the last Genetic Genealogy Ireland conference where the archaic remains of Lord Barrymore of Ireland was legally (and at great costs) tested. Unfortunately, DNA had degraded and did not reveal any information. But these researchers have not given up and are going after the right to make another DNA extraction from the inner ear with more advance testing equipment as well. So, there are some people testing archaic remains of royalty already.

There was also a second presentation where I think we now know the approximate YSNP/YSTR signature for King Brian Boru (born prior to 1,000 AD). The Europeans just love their royalty and go to great pains to maintain documentation for some of these lines. In order to preserve the royal heritage of the all male line of Brian Boru, they created a title for his descendants which has been passed down for over 40 generations - having provide proof of male lineage before the title is granted. So, we actually have a pretty solid genealogical trail to start with (but could have your normal NPE slip in but not real likely).

The current title holder has been become very interested in proving his title is correct through YDNA testing and volunteered his DNA several years ago. All his close matches came back as O'Briens and were tested L226 positive which at the time was thought to be 1,500 years old. L226 is one of the few older YSNP branches where around 90 % with solid research proving their ancestors were from Ireland. So, we now had some YDNA evidence supporting his title but having an Irish haplogroup and YSTR signature for this O'Brien genetic cluster. So YDNA evidence supported connections but not too much supporting evidence was discovered around two years ago before NGS testing.

However, with 55 NGS tests and another 45 L226 packs testing not only 40 known branches, 50 private YSNP and 50 L226 equivalents, we are now able to chart and reliably break up L226 into many branches. To our surprise, tested O'Briens/Bryans/Bryants, now belong to around ten different branches under L226 that are over 1,000 years old (before surnames were used), so only 20 % of the L226 O'Briens remain related to the royal line. These researchers have extensively tested NGS tests (that are now only yielding two or three new YSNPs each round) and now there are eleven levels of branches between L226 and the O'Brien title holder. The last four levels are dominated by O'Brien surnames, so they are now trying to figure the most likely YSNP/YSTR signature of Brian Boru.

With such a major amount of YSNP testing under L226, we are now able to chart around 75 % of the 500 plus 67 marker submissions based on 67 YSTRs, 43 known branches and over 100 tests that test an average 38 known branches being tested. So there is a lot research attempting to determine which YSNP and which associated YSTR signature is most likely Brian Boru's haplotype. The title holder attended the presentation and actually discussed his thoughts on this research project. Because of his title and relationship to Brian Boru, they strongly believe that he has the legal right to request testing of his ancestors and because of his extensive files of O'Brien information being passed down over the generations, he knows the location and status of several grandsons and great grandsons of Brian Boru. The Barrymore researchers and O'Brien researchers are going to assist each other with the legal paperwork, forensic requirements and laws that would allow their ancient remains to be tested. Each of these tests cost around $50,000 to $100,000 to conduct, so there has to be a lot of support to get these projects moving along. Pretty exciting progress for the O'Brien and Barry lines of Ireland. Pretty interesting and exciting research.

Calas
02-04-2017, 03:41 PM
I have always discounted connections back to early royalty. Everybody seems to run into these unbelievable connections.

Interesting commentary. But this is good advice for people not to take family trees seriously, particularly on some sites like Ancestry where the trees can be inaccurate and/or improbable. As A Norfolk L-M20 mentioned elsewhere geographical restrictions means that accuracy is limited to the internet. There's also something to consider about surnames is the variation that can account for disproving genetic relation. Just cause your name is O'Brien doesn't mean you're actually an O'Brien for example.

However, personally, DNA relationship still can't be denied. My ties are a little bit more than just sharing haplogroups. But I'd be the last one to hang a family tree with a DNA-approves-this-clamp stamp in the corner over the fireplace.

Jenny
02-04-2017, 05:57 PM
Oshawa mere mortals, Ancestry says I'm related to the fabled

Riley
03-06-2017, 04:10 PM
When I was little, my aunt spent a lot of time telling me and her kids that we're descended from William the Conquerer and Edward I. She never actually brought up any evidence to link us, though. And I vaguely remember a part of her story where she said she was visiting a castle that one of them had lived in where she had a "spiritual connection" with the, so that must make it true. Granted, it could have a grain of truth, but I'm not going to believe it until I can see primary documents that forge a concrete link that far back.

Baltimore1937
03-07-2017, 04:35 AM
The problem with connecting to the aristocracy, mostly England, is at this end. By that I mean the colonial American end. Once you connect to someone or some line where the tree is already laid out, it's just a matter of copying. I happily found out that Marie Antoinette is my distant cousin. That is if a Henry Sampson Jr. is really the son of a certain Henry Sampson (Sr.?) that I've settled on. Just because lots of other people also settled on that arrangement doesn't mean that it's true. Henry Sr.'s wife was Margery (or something like that) Leonard. That Leonard line is what goes back to a Duke of Lorraine, common ancestor of Marie Amtoinette and me, Ha ha!

Riley
03-07-2017, 06:14 AM
The problem with connecting to the aristocracy, mostly England, is at this end. By that I mean the colonial American end. Once you connect to someone or some line where the tree is already laid out, it's just a matter of copying.
That's true enough. And it is really nice when you find well-recorded trees! Trouble is, I haven't found that link yet, and my aunt hasn't given any more explanations on where this link is supposed to be. *shrugs* It'd be interesting to find, but I'm not making it my main lineage focus at this point.

Calas
03-07-2017, 10:10 AM
The problem with connecting to the aristocracy, mostly England, is at this end. By that I mean the colonial American end. Once you connect to someone or some line where the tree is already laid out, it's just a matter of copying.

There is no harm in doing your own research & double checking. It is not a good idea to take someone else's work as concrete as they may have just missed something.

Besides, there are many trees on sites like ancestry.com which are wrong. Are still lauded as correct despite research either by actual genealogists, and sometimes even geneticists via descendant testing, proving that such a claim is stretching reality a bit thin. There are complaints that either staff or others attaching the wrong dates, marriages, and other documentation to people throughout most of these sites [MyHertiage, ancestry, Geni, etc.]. Not to mention complaints on various forums because all people do is copy & paste trees without seeing if the initial tree had any documentation to back what is being claimed.

Baltimore1937
03-09-2017, 05:23 AM
There is no harm in doing your own research & double checking. It is not a good idea to take someone else's work as concrete as they may have just missed something.

Besides, there are many trees on sites like ancestry.com which are wrong. Are still lauded as correct despite research either by actual genealogists, and sometimes even geneticists via descendant testing, proving that such a claim is stretching reality a bit thin. There are complaints that either staff or others attaching the wrong dates, marriages, and other documentation to people throughout most of these sites [MyHertiage, ancestry, Geni, etc.]. Not to mention complaints on various forums because all people do is copy & paste trees without seeing if the initial tree had any documentation to back what is being claimed.

Yeah, I can agree with all that. I was a bit hasty in my reply. I try to keep my own tree and research trees slimmed down. I don't usually copy and paste, but selectively pluck items (dead people) and build a pedigree type tree. When you get back into Medieval times it gets tricky. My connection to that Duke/Count of (Haute) Lorraine is via a daughter. A son (her brother) is the direct ancestor of Marie Antoinette. Anyway, said duke had two wives. Although most trees give the first wife as my female connection's mother, I noticed in browsing that she was also given a different birth date resulting in the second wife being her mother. That second wife was shown as being a Wettin of Saxony which I assume would make her (and me) related to Queen Elizabeth II. Or?