General Chat

I do have one line, father's father etc back to Suffolk 1525, well researched ( not by me but a lifetime's work) I must check through it sometime.

from google " this is usually a surname of Scandinavian Viking, English, French-Breton or Irish origins."

Not exactly committing themselves there are they :-)

I'd be interested in knowing my DNA mix, but not enough to spend so much on finding out.

How did I know that you would have a direct link, meticulously researched, documented, verified and confirmed, to an illegitimate 14th C daughter of a son of Edward III, thereby being able to trace descent back to Henry II and your name derivative, Rollo the Viking (the son of Ketil flatnose, as I'm sure you know) where the line comes to a halt.

I bet you are waiting with bated breath for the transcription of the 9th C BDM records. I know I would be. Fascinating.

Practically everybody in the UK with a British grandfather will have a link to blue blood legitimate or otherwise. It is estimated that there are over 4 million descendents of Edward III. There are some public trees with over 100000 documented descendents of this king.

Maybe there are people with the blood of yeoman Saxons in their blood untainted with blue but not many. There are a few such villages in Leicestershire with records showing this going back to the C14. We have an ancient document for payment of fines ( rent ) nr Peterborough at that time. However our true Saxon claim is mucked up my descent from an impoverished illeg daughter of John of Gaunt not to forget my ggm born in Dublin. Her mother could not even speak English.

The Stuart kings had any number of children mostly out of wedlock many recognised and even enobled. A large part of the English middle class can document descent from the Stuarts. That is one reason that the Hanoverian monarchs got off to such a shaky start not being safe on the throne until Victoria.

Of course the Hanoverians also worked hard spreading their blue blood into the rest of the population. One such descendent was even on Chris Tarrant's millionaire quiz.

It is all a lot of fun but not to be taken seriously.

'Whether King or commoner, you should be responsible for the child you have fathered'.

In the context of royalty, a morganatic marriage, sometimes called a left-handed marriage is a marriage between people of unequal social rank, which prevents the passage of the husband's titles and privileges to the wife and any children born of the marriage.

Generally, this is a marriage between a man of high birth (such as from a reigning, deposed or mediatised dynasty) and a woman of lesser status (such as a daughter of a low-ranked noble family or a commoner).

Usually, neither the bride nor any children of the marriage have a claim on the bridegroom's succession rights, titles, precedence, or entailed property. The children are considered legitimate for all other purposes and the prohibition against bigamy applies.

In some countries, a woman could also marry a man of lower rank morganatically.

(Copied from the Net.) Learn something new every day!

Me too, Cynthia. My east coast ancestors supplied the Viking blood! They have Scandinavian surnames so we sort of knew already.

Mostly the rest of me is Celt and Basque.

We are a nation of immigrants. :-D

I had my DNA done too - as a Christmas present. It seems I have quite a lot of Scandinavian blood in my veins. I blame the Vikings!

I googled Scandinavian royalty and came up with King of Scandinavia - a cruise ferry. That about sums it up for me, as my mother used to say I had feet like barge boats! :-D

A past time still followed by many it seems :-D

Genealogy also doesn't acknowledge the 'rights' of the Lord of the Manor in times gone by :-( :-(


.......but if you were a 'canny' peasant, you made sure you were pregnant before you got married!

Yeah, I had my DNA done and it was interesting - I suppose the point is, as Nyx so righty says, we are all from one common ancestor and taking it to the extreme there was once upon a time a newly formed single cell.....

Fascinating to think about :)

Italians = Romans we've discussed this before. :-D

Oh I've got Scots blood in me so good chance some French royalty as they've got cozy over the years haven't they :-D :-D

Rose, my nephew got his DNA analysed.
His father's surname was Murphy, I've traced my line quite a long way back - mainly Suffolk/Hampshire one side, Cornish the other.
Nephew's DNA came back 6% Italian! :-D :-D :-D

Sadly my Brother in law (nephew's dad) is dead, or there would have been fantastically hilarious 'discussions' on whose side of the family was responsible!! :-D :-D :-D :-D

I think we are all related to Royalty
Depending on how wide and long

Your Family tree is :-D :-D

All descended from 'Adam', whoever or whatever you perceive 'Adam' to be ;-)

It does make me laugh though when you see people going the DNA route to try and prove ( to themselves?) that they are '100% British', ignoring the obvious truth that they weren't born wrapped in a flag with 'British pat pending' stamped on their bottom :-)

I might be reasonably certain of a French Duke or so along the line, but have dug up no 'gateway ancestors' so far.

Depending on how you do the maths, you can say that between 80% and 99% of people with British lineage are descended from Edward III.

The further you go back, the higher the likelihood of descent from royalty or fame. One estimate puts 100% of people in the western world with a line back to Mohammed. In fact anyone you care to choose who had a recorded number of children will be an ancestor somewhere along the line.

Tracing the line is another matter, obviously. But it's an interesting proposition and makes me wonder about lots of things.

By the same token, you can say the same about the millions and millions of people whose births and progeny were never recorded, which seems to be the case with me.