|
#51
17-10-13, 02:00
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks OC. That means I am extremely distantly related (by marriage) to Richard III myself, as long as proper (or any) evidence is not required.
 I should explain. We went to a family reunion for OH's side and they had a book for sale that had been researched by one of the older members of the family. The man had worked on the tree solidly for many hours a day for a year or so. I got it home and realised he had not spent one cent on certificates but it is my claim to being related to royalty.  I also claim all relationships for OH's side, unless I don't like them, as I am the one who put all the effort into determining they were relatives. My only genuine/proven claim to royalty is that one of my distant somethings was the bell cleaner on the brittannia or whatever the royal ship was at the time. The census was very specific, it may have been a brass bell but i can't remember now. Who knows maybe there was an indiscretion? Or more likely she may have even see a royal person, in the distance, down the other end of the ship, if she squinted. She is very important to me, although I can not recall her name.
__________________
Toni 
Last edited by Kit; 17-10-13 at 02:08. 
|
|
#52
17-10-13, 05:24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#53
17-10-13, 06:37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hmm. I had assumed we were talking c 1600, rather than c 1250
 Though we were advised that "black" in records was a reflection of skin tone, rather than racial origins, and could encompass gypsies and jews.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
|
|
#54
17-10-13, 10:04
|
||||
|
||||
|
I do like the story about the Queen's so-called black ancestry, but the family tree linking Charlotte back to the mistress of a 13th-century King of Portugal would come crashing down once the eagle-eyed researchers on GF got stuck in.
Slightly related is this story about the African ancestry of one group of Yorkshiremen. http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ite-brits.html
|
|
#55
20-10-13, 16:16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thankyou for the interesting link, Shona. I know these articles are written in a dumbed-down way without going into fine detail, but......there have always been black people in the UK and they were not all slaves or descendants of slaves. As it happens, I'm just reading a book which mentions the black Senegalese (next door to Guinea Bissau) amabassador for Portugal who was in England in very early 1500s. Portugal owned Guinea for many centuries.
There is also the misunderstanding that the Y-chromosome somehow codes for skin colour - it doesn't, it is merely the decider of sex (male) and a very few other things. Just because two men have the same Y-dna does not mean they will have the same skin colour. And who is to say that the rare haplotype now found only in Guinea Bissau and Yorkshire, lol, started there? Why couldn't it have started in China (for silly example) and spread sideways, dying out in all except the two present day locations. OC
|
|
#56
15-02-14, 16:55
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here's an interesting development on this thread
And, it would seem, far more realistic in terms of numbers...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/379...the-free-world
|
|
#57
15-02-14, 18:08
|
|||
|
|||
|
How can ANYONE be a descendant of this man when he had only one legitimate child who died in childhood!!!!!!!
OC
|
|
#58
15-02-14, 18:15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If the facts don't fit the theory, the theory is probably wrong!
|
|
#59
15-02-14, 18:47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elizabeth
Yes, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, or indeed a good family tree! I notice it is Anthony Adolph who is saying most of the Wstern world is descended from Rlll. You really would think he would do his research a bit more carefully......... OC
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
