Genealogy of HRH The Duchess of Sussex

[Gawin]

Thanks, Gawin, for the info about the research of Christopher C. Childs.
One benefit of Meghan becoming well known is that historians will put in some hard work to trace her family tree for her. Also, people might come out of the woodwork with oral family history.

Yes, I think you're right. A lot of research will continue to be done on Meghan's ancestry. Mr. Childs relied on published sources available online but there might be other unpublished sources available only in local archives or libraries located within Georgia. I suspect there are historians and genealogists poring over them right now.

I read Christopher's article and I am dismayed that he makes spelling mistakes.
Well, he spells the names differently than how they are spelt in the actual records that he also provides.
The documents say - Milly, Teasly, Elsey and he writes - Millie, Teasley and Elcy.
I guess the people filling in the cencus might not have spelt them the right way.

Nevertheless, if you are a genealogist, an archivist, or a serious historical researcher of any kind, it's not up to you to 'correct' the way people spelled their names. It would make me wonder what else has been 'corrected', quite frankly.

Much ado about nothing. ? Mr. Childs hasn't "corrected" anything. The names aren't spelled consistently in the sources he cites. For example, the 1870 census spells the names Elsey, Teasly, and Milly but the 1880 census spells them Elcy, Teasley, and Millie. The surname is spelled Teasly in Laura Teasly's 1885 marriage record.

Mr. Childs provides images of some of his sources (such at the 1870 census) but unfortunately you need a subscription to Ancestry to view the others (including the 1880 census).

Inconsistent spelling was very common. I do a lot of genealogical research myself (and subscribe to Ancestry) and I've run across legal documents that even spell the same surname two different ways.

 

[JR76]

Much ado about nothing. [emoji2] He hasn't "corrected" anything. The names aren't spelled consistently in the sources he cites. For example, "Milly" in the 1870 census but "Millie" in the 1880.

Mr. Childs provides images of some of his sources (such at the 1870 census) but unfortunately you need a subscription to Ancestry to view the others (including the 1880 census).

Inconsistent spelling was very common. I do a lot of genealogical research myself (and subscribe to Ancestry) and I've run across legal documents that even spell the same surname two different ways.

Regarding names spelled differently it happens to me all the time before the mid 1800s. Sometimes it's obvious that a name has been spelled the way it's pronounced in the local dialect (the priests were often locals that inherited their parish from their father) and sometime it's spelled in a more national Swedish way and most often in a mishmash in between.

 

[Lee-Z]

Indeed, even people themselves were often not consistent in spelling their names (particularly in periods were lot's of people didn't know how to write)
Even just 4 generations ago, my greatgrandfather spelled his last name in 2 different ways

 

[Gawin]

Regarding names spelled differently it happens to me all the time before the mid 1800s. Sometimes it's obvious that a name has been spelled the way it's pronounced in the local dialect (the priests were often locals that inherited their parish from their father) and sometime it's spelled in a more national Swedish way and most often in a mishmash in between.

The fact that names were sometimes spelled the way they were pronounced can be very helpful. I have many German immigrants in my ancestry. The person who enumerated them on the 1870 U.S. census, who wasn't German, spelled the surnames the way they were pronounced which is very interesting to me because that's not the way family members pronounce them now. So eureka! Now I know the original German pronunciation!

 

[Osipi]

There is also a culprit that is the elephant in the room the further one goes back in history to find written records. Literacy. Although it seems strange to us today where we're all educated to read and write, it wasn't always so.

https://ourworldindata.org/literacy

 

[JR76]

I found this video about DNA-testing prominent African Americans to find out their origins. I felt it could show some of the struggles African Americans have finding their roots.

 

[rootsroutes]

Lyon was The Queen Mother's patrilineal side. Let's try her matrilineage. It doesn't take long to get to no one.

0. HM The Queen
(father: a king/emperor, patriline to House of Wettin)
1. HM The Queen Mother
(father: an earl, patriline to 14th century Scottish nobility)
2. Cecilia Nina Cavendish-Bentinck
(paternal grandfather: a duke, patriline to 14th century Dutch nobility)
3. Caroline Louise Burnaby
(father: major-general, MP, courtier)
4. Anne Caroline Salisbury
(father: solicitor)
5. Frances Webb
(father: unknown occupation)
6. Mary Garritt
7. Anne Newland (probably - just a commoner in Gloucestershire born during Queen Anne's reign). There are likely no more leads from here.

For the record, we have the Duchess of Sussex's matrilineage back 7 generations too, to 1815. There are lots more matrilineages like this.

 

[King of the Jungle]

I wonder if there is any connection between Angela Merkel's ancestors and those of Meghan Markle?
I read that Thomas Markle has, among others, Germain ancestry and that the family name was changed from Merkle to Markle.

 

[Iolanthe]

I wonder if there is any connection between Angela Merkel's ancestors and those of Meghan Markle?
I read that Thomas Markle has, among others, Germain ancestry and that the family name was changed from Merkle to Markle.

Merkel is a pretty common German surname, so a connection is not likely IMO. In any case it would be a connection to Angela Merkel's first husband, as her maiden name is Kasner.

 

[Gawin]

I wonder if there is any connection between Angela Merkel's ancestors and those of Meghan Markle?
I read that Thomas Markle has, among others, Germain ancestry and that the family name was changed from Merkle to Markle.

Meghan's Markle ancestors have been traced to 19th century Pennsylvania. Apparently they were of German or Swiss descent but nothing more is known at this point.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Did Meghan get a copy of her Irish Family tree during her visit I recall there was talk about it?

 

[Terri Terri]

If she did, it would probably be a private gift. I can just imagine her half-sister claiming that it should be given to the Markle family!

 

[Terri Terri]

More on Meghan's Irish heritage.
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and...-famous-visitors-like-meghan-markle-1.3571339

Meghan Markle, who visited Dublin last week, has publicly embraced a blended heritage that includes Irish ancestry. The duchess is descended from the mixed-marriage in 1860 of a Belfast Catholic and English Protestant. The couple won the “army-wives lottery” and secured permission to marry in Donnybrook Church. Shortly after, they left Ireland for Malta and later*Canada.*

 

[lemmy]

More on Meghan's Irish heritage.
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and...-famous-visitors-like-meghan-markle-1.3571339

Interesting read, thanks!

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Thanks to @Gawin for directing me to this thread. ?

A journalist I met in 2017 ended up writing a piece in our local newspaper about Meghan's maternal family's local connections, published in the week leading up to H&M's royal wedding. The article contains a few inaccuracies due to information being sketchy, especially at that time (e.g., Meghan's great-grandmother's husband/ common-law partner's name is James Forshey, not James Arnold). There are likely a number of genealogy enthusiasts sleuthing around trying to track down more information on Meghan's maternal line, since a lot has already been uncovered about her paternal ancestry. Much of the information has yet to be fully organized. Anyway, here's the article:
https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2018/05/meghan_markles_surprising_clev.html

I recently found additional information online via this gem of a blog post by a genealogy enthusiast. The information contained here corrects some of the details in the above article, especially regarding names:
https://vitabrevis.americanancestors.org/2018/05/meghan-markles-maternal-family/
Scroll down to #5 Nettie Mae Allen alias Arnold (This is Meghan's maternal great-grandmother; Doria's grandmother; Jeanette Arnold Johnson Ragland's mother)

Of course, it was Meghan's Uncle Joseph (Doria's half-brother) who started the ball rolling re Meghan's maternal genealogy, by selling family pictures and information to the Daily Mail right after H&M's engagement announcement. Here's a video compiled from the pictures and text published in DM. Scroll to 4:10 to see a photo of Nettie Mae Allen Arnold:

In this video, as part of a public service campaign by USA Network, Meghan briefly mentions how her mother's family migrated from Cleveland to California when her mother was a baby:

No Meghan, prejudices are not isolated to the past, unfortunately. Hopefully, continued historical, anthropological and genealogical research can help in the effort to bring people closer together in spirit, since we actually are all connected biologically.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

As I mentioned in the DoC family background thread, Meghan and Kate are also very distantly connected via Elizabeth Mortimer, a great-granddaughter of King Edward III. It's said that most people alive today who have English ancestry are likely descendants of King Edward III. However, due to lack of readily accessible records, it's difficult for many people to be able to trace their ancestral roots back that far. Or to definitively confirm accuracy of sketchy information they may come across.

Here's the website that contains information connecting DoC Kate and DoS Meghan:
https://anthonyadolph.co.uk/princess-catherine/
Scroll down to "Elizabeth Mortimer":
https://anthonyadolph.co.uk/princess-catherine/

And here is the website that contains a pdf link which provides a very detailed paternal ancestral chart of Meghan Markle showing the distant connection to Harry via King Edward III through Wentworth, Seymour, Spencer, Cavendish and Bowes-Lyon families down to the Windsors. So, there's a Meghan paternal family connection to both Diana Spencer and Elizabeth Bowes Lyon that we can see on this chart:
https://www.americanancestors.org/Royal-Ancestry-of-Meghan-Markle.aspx

When you open the website, click on the pdf link positioned to the right and save. It's entitled: Meghan and Harry's Shared Ancestry. It's fascinating. Most likely when all of this genealogy information was revealed showing Meghan's royal ancestral connections, it sealed the deal for Harry's family members' full acceptance of Meghan (albeit he would have married her anyway). I can just imagine them thinking: "Oh, it makes perfect sense then. She's one of us." Even DoC Kate is an 11th cousin of Prince William via her paternal line connection to Queen Mother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.

And looking at the chart, I can also see clearly the Brudenell-Bruce family connection which passes down to Diana's mother who married 7th Earl Spencer which effectively reconnected two Seymour family lines. As well, one of Prince Harry's former girlfriends, Florence Brudenell-Bruce, is related to George Brudenell 3rd Earl of Cardigan (see his name on the chart) via a Walpole ancestor who married into the Brudenell family. We don't see Florence's direct line on the linked chart of course, but her connection to British royalty was mentioned in 2011 around the time Prince Harry briefly dated Florence after breaking up with Chelsy Davy:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...friend-is-his-cousin-eight-times-removed.html
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Walpole-4

Therefore, Harry's former girlfriend, Florence Brudenell-Bruce, his cousin 8 times removed, is also distantly related to his wife DoS Meghan. In fact, there appears to be a slight facial resemblance between Florence and Meghan. Not unusual, since it's all in the family. Apparently, the tabloids missed this tidbit. I wonder for how long?

 

[Osipi]

I find it amazing that Meghan's ancestry is so interesting yet no one seems to realize that William and Harry also have a very well known actor in their family tree.

If you've ever caught the popular Chicago Med program aired here in the States every Wednesday, you'll see someone distantly (3rd cousin) related to William and Harry. His name is Oliver Platt and he plays Dr. Daniel Charles in the series.

Its in the blood.

https://famouskin.com/famous-kin-ch...iver+platt&via=6317+james+boothby+burke+roche

 

[MaiaMia_53]

^^ Yes indeed, I read about that before re Olver Platt.

As I learned, everyone with English ancestry alive today is said to be descended in one way or another from King Edward III. That's a mighty revelation. At some level, we are all connected, but the threads and connections are distant and convoluted for the most part. And sometimes, not even traceable or verifiable.

 

[Osipi]

The threads that did survive all the plagues were the nobles and rich that could afford to isolate and eat healthy. Those middle ages were brutal.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Well yes, lot's of people died. But the genealogists are saying that everyone still alive today who has English ancestry (which can often be revealed via DNA testing) is likely descended from King Edward III. The fact being that the population was much smaller back then. And also the family lines extend out in so many directions. Plus in England, the family wealth is always passed down to sons. So, it's notable that Meghan's father's direct-line ancestry to King Edward III is via a female line great-granddaughter who may not have married a landowner. In fact, notice in the genealogy chart how many daughers are in the Markle line of descent, rather than sons.

From the American Ancestors link I provided in post #46, I think it's very interesting that Meghan is related via her paternal ancestry to a number of U.S. presidents, including the Bushes, James Garfield, Calvin Coolidge, Chester Arthur, Richard Nixon, and also to John Kerry, Clarence Darrow, Mamie Eisenhower, the poet John Greenleaf Whittier, and the actor, James Dean, et al!

In addition, with all of the vast familial line interconnections, Harry and Meghan are incredibly said to be "distant cousins in more than 200 ways." That's mind-boggling. Perhaps that's why during their courtship, Harry and Meghan felt such a familiar kinship and synchronicity.

 

[Blog Real]

Ancestry of Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Hrv4-8Fs...HQ/s1600/4e971ebfe2c8691c87b2a1f0ca116994.jpg

 

[Blog Real]

The oddities of Meghan Markle’s genealogy
https://newsroyals.com/the-oddities-of-meghan-markles-genealogy/amp/

 

[Somebody]

It was pretty complicated to read but the claim is that Meghan's maternal grandmother Jeanette Arnold is the result of an incestuous relationship between half-siblings James Arnold (1909-1939; son of Gertrude Sadler and Samuel Arnold) and Nettie Allen (Pritchard by her 4th marriage) (1897-1980; daughter of Gertrude Sadler and Hunter Allen).

 

[Gawin]

The oddities of Meghan Markle’s genealogy
https://newsroyals.com/the-oddities-of-meghan-markles-genealogy/amp/

The article was written by someone who knows very little about distinguishing between poor versus credible genealogical sources.

First, the author dismisses the claim that Meghan is a descendant of Edward III as “fictional” because the story first appeared in Wikipedia. As the author points out, Wikipedia isn’t always a credible source. But a little research on the author’s part would have revealed that “American genealogist Gary Boyd Roberts” is a professional genealogist who happens to be a graduate of Yale University, a published author, and the Senior Research Scholar Emeritus of the New England Historic Genealogical Society. We can rest assured his research is not “fictional.”

https://vitabrevis.americanancestors.org/profile/gbroberts/?tab=comments

Second, the author bases his/her own claims about Meghan’s supposed incestuous maternal family tree on entries in Find A Grave, apparently oblivious to the fact that like Wikipedia, Find A Grave entries are written by volunteers who aren’t always genealogical experts. As a result, it is full of mistakes. I’m a Find A Grave volunteer myself and I got started because I was tired of constantly asking other volunteers to correct misinformation they had posted about my own ancestors.

Finally, if you view Jeanette (Arnold) Johnson’s Find A Grave entry, you will find that she is no longer linked to Nettie Pritchard as her mother and the following message has been added:

"from Tamara L Crabb
Great Niece
2/23/2021
Nettie was my great aunt, her daughter Jeanette was actually her brother's daughter. He died from a car accident and Nettie raised Jeanette as her own. This needs to be clarified because it often states on the internet that this is her and her brothers daughter! "

So Nettie was Jeanette’s aunt (not her mother) but she raised Jeanette as a daughter following the death of her brother James (Jeanette’s father).

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/189907599/jeanette-johnson

 

[Blog Real]

The article was written by someone who knows very little about distinguishing between poor versus credible genealogical sources.

First, the author dismisses the claim that Meghan is a descendant of Edward III as “fictional” because the story first appeared in Wikipedia. As the author points out, Wikipedia isn’t always a credible source. But a little research on the author’s part would have revealed that “American genealogist Gary Boyd Roberts” is a professional genealogist who happens to be a graduate of Yale University, a published author, and the Senior Research Scholar Emeritus of the New England Historic Genealogical Society. We can rest assured his research is not “fictional.”

https://vitabrevis.americanancestors.org/profile/gbroberts/?tab=comments

Second, the author bases his/her own claims about Meghan’s supposed incestuous maternal family tree on entries in Find A Grave, apparently oblivious to the fact that like Wikipedia, Find A Grave entries are written by volunteers who aren’t always genealogical experts. As a result, it is full of mistakes. I’m a Find A Grave volunteer myself and I got started because I was tired of constantly asking other volunteers to correct misinformation they had posted about my own ancestors.

Finally, if you view Jeanette (Arnold) Johnson’s Find A Grave entry, you will find that she is no longer linked to Nettie Pritchard as her mother and the following message has been added:

"from Tamara L Crabb
Great Niece
2/23/2021
Nettie was my great aunt, her daughter Jeanette was actually her brother's daughter. He died from a car accident and Nettie raised Jeanette as her own. This needs to be clarified because it often states on the internet that this is her and her brothers daughter! "

So Nettie was Jeanette’s aunt (not her mother) but she raised Jeanette as a daughter following the death of her brother James (Jeanette’s father).

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/189907599/jeanette-johnson

So what is Jeanette's mother's name anyway?

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Well yes, lot's of people died. But the genealogists are saying that everyone still alive today who has English ancestry (which can often be revealed via DNA testing) is likely descended from King Edward III. The fact being that the population was much smaller back then. And also the family lines extend out in so many directions. Plus in England, the family wealth is always passed down to sons. So, it's notable that Meghan's father's direct-line ancestry to King Edward III is via a female line great-granddaughter who may not have married a landowner. In fact, notice in the genealogy chart how many daughers are in the Markle line of descent, rather than sons.

From the American Ancestors link I provided in post #46, I think it's very interesting that Meghan is related via her paternal ancestry to a number of U.S. presidents, including the Bushes, James Garfield, Calvin Coolidge, Chester Arthur, Richard Nixon, and also to John Kerry, Clarence Darrow, Mamie Eisenhower, the poet John Greenleaf Whittier, and the actor, James Dean, et al!

In addition, with all of the vast familial line interconnections, Harry and Meghan are incredibly said to be "distant cousins in more than 200 ways." That's mind-boggling. Perhaps that's why during their courtship, Harry and Meghan felt such a familiar kinship and synchronicity.

Not really. So many Americans of Anglo descent can be traced to that King. In those days, kings behaved no differently from other men when it came to extramarital affairs and children out of wedlock. The difference is in status and in who you marry.

 

[Gawin]

So what is Jeanette's mother's name anyway?

Hmm...that's a good question. Based on a superficial search of census records in Ancestry I suspect she was in fact Nettie's daughter by her first husband James Forshey. The three are listed together on the 1930 census when Jeanette was only six months old.

I think the confusion surrounding Jeanette's parentage stems from the fact that her entry in the Social Applications and Claims Index lists her parents as James Arnold and Nettie Williams. Apparently some have chosen to identify James Arnold as Nettie's half-brother. of the same name. But I suspect Arnold was a mistake for Forshey, and so does another Ancestry member, who has made that correction in the index. James Forshey apparently died or disappeared when Jeanette was very young and her mother remarried again several times and it's possible at some point his identity became somewhat murky.

But this is guesswork on my part. My point is that you CANNOT simply rely on Find A Grave, as the author of the article did. It makes no sense to dismiss the research on her father's royal roots because it appeared in Wikipedia but not apply the same standard to Find A Grave.

 

[Lilyflo]

But this is guesswork on my part. My point is that you CANNOT simply rely on Find A Grave, as the author of the article did. It makes no sense to dismiss the research on her father's royal roots because it appeared in Wikipedia but not apply the same standard to Find A Grave.

I agree! I've been doing family history research for over 40 years and have done countless trees for other people. You have to go to the original/official records for evidence (and even those can contain lies and mistakes!). Find A Grave is not an original or offical record. It might be correct or it could be totally wrong so I'd never trust it as the primary source.

According to some experts, most people with British heritage are descended from Edward III - the challenge is to find the documentary evidence for every link between him and his descendants.