General Royal Genealogical questions

[Ana Von Cleves]

Records held in the LDS family history centers are either microfisch, digital, or publicly available data. Newspapers, census data, wills, Land records, etc.

Much of it has been submitted by the families involved.


And you are right, almost none of it is available on line to my knowledge.
You have to go there.


Places like Ancestory.com, for all its advertising, really only give you a starting point.



Anyway, happy hunting!!

[Grandma828]

Don't count out the LDS. When you go the first time ask them to teach you about their sources. You can order copies on tape of many records. I have been using their resources for 30 years. Whatever you do be sure to keep an open mind and don't get horrified when you find scandals, out of wedlock births, murders, etc. These things are not often talked about within families. My husbands family has been very difficult to trace. His Mother's Dad was married 3 times and his Dad's parents were not married.We found the birth certificate but it only has her first name. We are at a stonewall on that one. Good luck.

[WarHiker]

Ana, thanks for the clarification about LDS. It really had sounded like they only had paper documents, and that it was all local.

I will definitely keep an open mind, especially since there is no nominal fee!

As for scandals, grandma, I am pretty familiar with them and I feel that it would create a more genuine aire to my family's history. Also, if one is associated with royals of any sort, scandals are sure to follow.

I don't want to think of the worst possible, but I hope that I could handle it.

[nascarlucy]

On my father's side of the family, there is Polish Royalty. This has been by word of mouth and I'm not sure if there is documentation of this.

On my biological parent's side there is British Royalty. This has been documented somewhere supposedly.

Having this ancestry especially if you grow up in the US doesn't really benefit you one way or another. It hasn't benefited me or anyone in my family as far as social standing or job opportunities. The only way it would benefit someone would be if they kept the same social and economic standing which most of them didn't once they came to the US. It's an interesting story to tell others about you're family tree.

The Polish ancestor who came to the US in 1800 was the grandson of a Polish baron (on the wrong side of the sheets). He had some social standing in Poland but once he came to the US, he didn't have the same social or economic standing. I'm assuming he had some money but I imagine that no one he came into contact with would care that he was the grandson of a Polish baron. He was just a regular person in the US.

Every family whether they are royal or not have some type of scandal or something that happened that isn't talked about much or the relative that embarrasses everyone.

[WarHiker]

With great power comes great re-scandalility

[WarHiker]

I have been dealing with scandal for my entire life. My family was vilified for claiming royal lineage. Here is a short synapsis:

Family claims Anneke Jans is the daughter of Wolffert Weber, heir of King William Nassau. This is disputed by many. But, explain why anneke's soon married the daughter of the daughter of William the silent. The ruling house will lead you to believe there is zero connection (partially because of a 30 million dollar estate, and partially claims through male line). Regardless, we are called liars and cheats.

But no one talks about her sons close connection to Webber, they just use a single made up source to deny the Jans connection to Webber. Oooh yeah, conveniently that source is asked to remain anonymous. That stinks also, huh?

So, with this controversy, I was glad to find multiple other royal connections that weren't through disputed lines.

[nascarlucy]

I just curious about something WarHiker, would DNA clear any of this up?

[WarHiker]

Lucy, my answer is possibly.

[aubri]

Countess Matilda "Maud" de Penthievre de Brittany
Your 28th great grandmother
Birth 1092 in Rennes, Ille-et-Vilaine, Bretagne, France
Death 1132 in Bretagne, France
Edit this person
Story View

[Meraude]

Charlemange -> Pepin Carloman, king of Italy -> Bernhard I, king of Italy -> Pepin, count of Senlis -> Pepin I de Vermandois, comte de Senlis -> Hubert, comte de Senlis -> Sprota (Sporta) de Senlis -> Richard I, duke of Normandy -> Hawise of Normandy -> Eudes, count of Penthievre and Brittany -> Maud de Penthievre and Britanny

From: Maud (Matilda) de BRITTANY b. Abt 1043 Penthievre, Morbihan, Bretagne, France: Medieval Roots

[aubri]

I have been working very hard to put together our family tree and I was excited to first see William the Conqueror, but as I continued I found I am related to Queen Elizabeth II. Very distant 22nd cousin removed 2X but still interesting! I can't wrap my head around 22nd cousin 2x removed. If someone can explain I would appreciate it. Do we even share the same blood this far along?

[NotHRH]

I have read that everyone in the world are at least 14th cousins. As far as being DNA/blood related to a 22nd cousin, probably neither. Think of your maternal grandparents; let us assume your mother inherited 50% of her DNA from each of her parents. At your conception, she passed on to you ONLY those genes that she had inherited from her father. So at that point you actually have none of your grandmother's DNA. So a person can be descended or related to a person and the both of you actually do not have any genes/DNA in common. This is an oversimplified version, but it is entirely possible.

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Think of your maternal grandparents; let us assume your mother inherited 50% of her DNA from each of her parents. At your conception, she passed on to you ONLY those genes that she had inherited from her father.

Don't think this is how it happens?
DNA is passed on from parent to child

[NotHRH]

There is nothing to think about, if you reread that page, it says exactly what I stated the 1st time. Possible for it to happen that way, but not probable. Even with that point explained, someone who is your 22nd cousin twice removed (and there is for certain no closer common ancestor), is really not a relative at all. To say you are related to the queen and she is your cousin, you are only fooling yourself with that belief. Give me an update next year when you are invited to Buckingham Palace to celebrate her 90th birthday and she introduces you to all as her long lost cousin. I only wish you good luck with that.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

I have read that everyone in the world are at least 14th cousins. As far as being DNA/blood related to a 22nd cousin, probably neither. Think of your maternal grandparents; let us assume your mother inherited 50% of her DNA from each of her parents. At your conception, she passed on to you ONLY those genes that she had inherited from her father. So at that point you actually have none of your grandmother's DNA. So a person can be descended or related to a person and the both of you actually do not have any genes/DNA in common. This is an oversimplified version, but it is entirely possible.

One of the factors that plays a very important part in not only our DNA and cell structure but also in determining genetic lineage is mitochondrial DNA. It is passed on solely through the female line hence its nickname "The Eve Gene". Males do inherit the mitochondrial DNA from their ancestors but are incapable of passing it on. So then, your DNA can and does contain genetic material that come from one's grandmother.

Mitochondrial DNA — University of Leicester

Case in point. The remains of Richard III were analyzed and compared and it was proven it was indeed the deceased King through DNA testing and his mitchondrial DNA samples.

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/f...m-dna-analysis

[norenxaq]

a cousin is a cousin regardless of how remote if the relationship can be proven via genealogy. note: dna shows that a relationship exists, but for this, not specifically how

[NotHRH]

Agreed, but the point is that it is not a close relationship as many who have "proof" they are related to QEII for instance. Some who post in this category really believe that they are now royalty because the Queen is their 22nd cousin. I cannot phathom someone actually believing that because it is just silly. Again, everybody on our earth is related to each other. Royalty is nothing more than a concept, there are royalty genes or DNA - mere mortals who, in throughout history, blatantly stole from those they ruled and their wealth increased exponentially. I may be the queen's 15th cousin - but that info and a couple of dollars might buy a cup of coffee from McD*****s.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Agreed, but the point is that it is not a close relationship as many who have "proof" they are related to QEII for instance. Some who post in this category really believe that they are now royalty because the Queen is their 22nd cousin. I cannot phathom someone actually believing that because it is just silly. Again, everybody on our earth is related to each other. Royalty is nothing more than a concept, there are royalty genes or DNA - mere mortals who, in throughout history, blatantly stole from those they ruled and their wealth increased exponentially. I may be the queen's 15th cousin - but that info and a couple of dollars might buy a cup of coffee from McD*****s.

I think your chances would be better at a Burger King or a Dairy Queen for the cup of coffee.

I think when it comes down to a 22nd cousin of anyone in a family tree that at one time was royal, the description would best be that they are descended from the House of X or the royal lineage of Y

As far as being royal today, The Princess Royal's (Anne) children are not royal and they're the grandchildren of the present monarch. Another example is when either of the York girls marry, their children will not be royal either. Both of the descendants of Richard III that were tested for the DNA have a King in their family tree but they're most certainly not royal.

Trick to figuring out who is royal or not in the BRF is to look at the titles. Other than Her Majesty, all other members of the royal family hold the HRH styling.

[WarHiker]

Hello there. I would like to help you understand what the cousin terminology really means. Yesterday I decided to attempt to track every Baron of Magna Charta in an attempt to find out if I have lineage past my Gateway Almy ancestor. I think that most would find that my system of describing the close relations is quite more entertaining to ponder than the normal cousin removed system.

Below will be pasted my BOMC lineage links that are Third and Fourth ordered connections. I label the connections based on our common ancestor. For this reason a single order connection means that the person's parents are linked to me as a grandparent. In my defintiion a second ordered connection means that a person's grandparent is one of my grandparents.

Third Order:
-Eustace de Vesci - b 1169/70 - 1st cousin 25x removed
his great gramd father is my 25th ggf
-William de Albini -b abt 1160 - 1st cousin 25x removed
his great grand father is my 25th ggf

Fourth Order
-William de Forz - b abt 1192 - 2nd cousin 25x removed -
his 2nd ggf is my 25th ggf
-Richard de Montfichet b. bef 1202 - 2nd cousin 23x removed
his 2nd ggf is my 23rd ggf


I hope that this helps to show you a little bit of what cousin removed system actually means.

Take Care,

William Wallace Brower Berkhoven III

[norenxaq]

everyone related to everyone else? only if you consider species history, rather than family history, ie genealogy which i what we are discussing. as such, I reject the claim