Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is what I've leanned over the years...most of our families seem pretty dull. I descend from pretty much every Royal and Noble House throughout Europe, including Vikings and the first Russian czars. But that stuff is pretty common and boring to me. And then a few years ago I discovered Genealogy Bank. My family lines became very interesting and full of fascinating characters. Old news articles really add that extra dimension. So, if you think your family is pretty boring and lacking some "ZING!" try looking for them in old news accounts
I think once you're in one European royal family, you're in them all. That tree didn't even branch.
Just curious how you know that for sure. I hope you've researched it yourself with a healthy dose of skepticism bolstered by dna.
Yes, I have spent 29 years researching it, and my lines have been confirmed by the College of Arms and the Court of the Lord Lyon, as well as other societies who are experts in the field of royal and noble genealogy. You really shouldn't be so surprised or sceptical. Many of us in the United States descend from quite a few noble and royal lines. As for dna evidence, most of these lines were through my mother's British ancestors and she had no brothers. My mother's and father's lines do connect with shared ancestors in early New Jersey settlers, so it might be possible to do a dna match with at least some of these noble/royal lines if I can get my brother to submit dna. Since he is now much bigger than I am wrestling him to the ground no longer works as a measure to gain compliance
I did have two claimed noble lines which turned out to be false, but ended up actually connecting with yet another noble line during that search Personally, these lines hold very little interest for me. I prefer the more common lines
And not many of their descendents migrated across the ocean, despite what many like to imagine.
Actually, more than you can imagine. Keep in mind that some noble and even royal lines lost their standing due to many reasons. They still have descendants who, although considered "commoners" now, still share the same blood lines.
Some people aren't even aware that they have noble or royal blood because for one reason or another the last descendant to hold the royal/noble title or surname agreed to take the name of their wife's family as their own. My Somers line did this when a descendant became a ***** upon marrying his wife, in order to help that family carry on their name.
Actually, more than you can imagine. Keep in mind that some noble and even royal lines lost their standing due to many reasons. They still have descendants who, although considered "commoners" now, still share the same blood lines.
On the flip side, I can't count the number of cases I've seen where people who claim descent from a British nobleman, actually turned out to have been descended from an indentured servant with the same surname. Of course, most of my research has focused on Virginia and North Carolina and perhaps it's different up North.
Some people aren't even aware that they have noble or royal blood because for one reason or another the last descendant to hold the royal/noble title or surname agreed to take the name of their wife's family as their own. My Somers line did this when a descendant became a ***** upon marrying his wife, in order to help that family carry on their name.
That sounds almost like the old canard of names getting changed at Ellis Island. Please provide evidence that was common or even uncommon practice. In fact, I'd venture that would have been illegal under English law.
Yes, I have spent 29 years researching it, and my lines have been confirmed by the College of Arms and the Court of the Lord Lyon, as well as other societies who are experts in the field of royal and noble genealogy. You really shouldn't be so surprised or sceptical. Many of us in the United States descend from quite a few noble and royal lines. As for dna evidence, most of these lines were through my mother's British ancestors and she had no brothers. My mother's and father's lines do connect with shared ancestors in early New Jersey settlers, so it might be possible to do a dna match with at least some of these noble/royal lines if I can get my brother to submit dna. Since he is now much bigger than I am wrestling him to the ground no longer works as a measure to gain compliance
I did have two claimed noble lines which turned out to be false, but ended up actually connecting with yet another noble line during that search Personally, these lines hold very little interest for me. I prefer the more common lines
Why is it that it takes dna from a boy? I've seen that somewhere else....with no explanation.
That sounds almost like the old canard of names getting changed at Ellis Island. Please provide evidence that was common or even uncommon practice. In fact, I'd venture that would have been illegal under English law.
No, it most certainly was NOT illegal and happened quite often throughout British history, especially if a peerage or title was about to become extinct. It was just as legal as adopting someone not of your blood to be an heir.
Check out Burke's Peerage and Burke's Landed Gentry, both of which I own. I purchased my copies from an antiquated books seller in Wigtown, Scotland. One is from 1826 and the other 1952.
During the Middle Ages and sometimes in later eras, a man from a lower-born family marrying an only daughter from a higher-status family, was often designated to carry on his wife's family name. Sometimes this was also done by a son who was not his own father's heir due to not being the eldest son. In the 18th and 19th centuries in Britain, bequests were sometimes made contingent upon a man changing (or hyphenating) his name, so that the name of the legator continued.
I am really curious to know, though, why you seem so hostile towards those who genuinely descend from noble or royal lines?
What I find really amusing is that you have no idea who my British husband or his family is, LOL! My mum-in-law has this very old wooden chest, and inside there resides some very, very old documents, some going back to the 12th century...that should give you an idea of the status of my husband's family. Here's another clue...his family is connected with three castles in the north of England, one of which is still the family seat of my husband's 2nd cousin My husband's youngest sister owns and lives in one of the oldest existing houses in England, built in the 14th century, which comes complete with secret tunnels and a priest's hole. Yes, the tunnels exist. We excavated them all the way to their ending point and found that they connected with 3 other homes nearby as well as with the local church.
A male's dna is needed for tracing a connection to a particular family surname.
Well there's more science to it than that. There are basically two kind types of testing available now, y-dna from man back through his paternal line and mtdna from a woman back through her maternal line. It has to do with how dna on our chromosomes is inherited down through the generations. You can read more about it here:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
