Bogus Royal Lines
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Bogus Royal Lines
Is there a website (and perhaps I should start one) of emigrants to
North America with bogus or dubious royal lines. For instance, I
already know that the royal lines claimed for John Drake of Windsor, CT
and John Whitney of Watertown, MA have been disproven. I also descend
from Vincent Meigs of Killingworth, CT, William Barsham of Watertown,
MA, and Robert White of Messing, Essex, England, all of whom it seems
have bogus lines tied to them on the Internet as well as Ancestral File
at the LDS website. It is possible I *missed* some article, however, I
find that doubtful.
I would like confirmation of the following:
That the parentage of Vincent Meigs remains unknown: Best research:
Search for the Passengers of the Mary & John 1630" vol. 25, p. 47-8.
The parentage of William Barsham remains unknown: Best research: Robert
Charles Anderson "The Great Migration Begins; Immigrants to New England
1620-1633" Vol. 1 (NEHGS, Boston, 1995) 1:108-111.
The parentage of Robert White remains unknown: Best research:
"The Ancestry of Thomas Chalmers Brainerd" by Thomas C. Brainerd;
edited by Donald Lines Jacobus (Montreal, 1948)
Mary Walton Ferris, "Dawes-Gates Ancestral Lines" 2 vols. (n.p., 1943
and 1931)
"Genealogical Notes on the Founding of New England" by Ernest Flagg
(1926, reprint 1973)
"The Children of Robert White of Messing . . " NEHGR 55
(1901):22-31.
Much thanks.
North America with bogus or dubious royal lines. For instance, I
already know that the royal lines claimed for John Drake of Windsor, CT
and John Whitney of Watertown, MA have been disproven. I also descend
from Vincent Meigs of Killingworth, CT, William Barsham of Watertown,
MA, and Robert White of Messing, Essex, England, all of whom it seems
have bogus lines tied to them on the Internet as well as Ancestral File
at the LDS website. It is possible I *missed* some article, however, I
find that doubtful.
I would like confirmation of the following:
That the parentage of Vincent Meigs remains unknown: Best research:
Search for the Passengers of the Mary & John 1630" vol. 25, p. 47-8.
The parentage of William Barsham remains unknown: Best research: Robert
Charles Anderson "The Great Migration Begins; Immigrants to New England
1620-1633" Vol. 1 (NEHGS, Boston, 1995) 1:108-111.
The parentage of Robert White remains unknown: Best research:
"The Ancestry of Thomas Chalmers Brainerd" by Thomas C. Brainerd;
edited by Donald Lines Jacobus (Montreal, 1948)
Mary Walton Ferris, "Dawes-Gates Ancestral Lines" 2 vols. (n.p., 1943
and 1931)
"Genealogical Notes on the Founding of New England" by Ernest Flagg
(1926, reprint 1973)
"The Children of Robert White of Messing . . " NEHGR 55
(1901):22-31.
Much thanks.
-
Gjest
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
The references you have listed seem to be pretty good,
and the supposed royal descents do appear to be false.
There are so many false claims,
they might even outnumber the real ones.
Some others I know of, that are false:
Deacon John Dunham of Mass.
Mary, wife of William Brewster of the Mayflower.
Leslie
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
and the supposed royal descents do appear to be false.
There are so many false claims,
they might even outnumber the real ones.
Some others I know of, that are false:
Deacon John Dunham of Mass.
Mary, wife of William Brewster of the Mayflower.
Leslie
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
Is there a website (and perhaps I should start one) of emigrants to
North America with bogus or dubious royal lines. For instance, I
already know that the royal lines claimed for John Drake of Windsor,
CT
and John Whitney of Watertown, MA have been disproven. I also
descend
from Vincent Meigs of Killingworth, CT, William Barsham of Watertown,
MA, and Robert White of Messing, Essex, England, all of whom it seems
have bogus lines tied to them on the Internet as well as Ancestral
File
at the LDS website. It is possible I *missed* some article, however,
I
find that doubtful.
I would like confirmation of the following:
That the parentage of Vincent Meigs remains unknown: Best research:
Search for the Passengers of the Mary & John 1630" vol. 25, p. 47-8.
The parentage of William Barsham remains unknown: Best research:
Robert
Charles Anderson "The Great Migration Begins; Immigrants to New
England
1620-1633" Vol. 1 (NEHGS, Boston, 1995) 1:108-111.
The parentage of Robert White remains unknown: Best research:
"The Ancestry of Thomas Chalmers Brainerd" by Thomas C. Brainerd;
edited by Donald Lines Jacobus (Montreal, 1948)
Mary Walton Ferris, "Dawes-Gates Ancestral Lines" 2 vols. (n.p., 1943
and 1931)
"Genealogical Notes on the Founding of New England" by Ernest Flagg
(1926, reprint 1973)
"The Children of Robert White of Messing . . " NEHGR 55
(1901):22-31.
Much thanks.
-
Gjest
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
I think I recall Paul Reed mentioning here, perhaps a year or two ago, that
his website would feature a "bogus gateway ancestor" list. Anyone else
remember this? I'm not sure what the status of the website is. Maybe Leslie Mahler
knows more.
Dave Morehouse
Hopkins, MN
his website would feature a "bogus gateway ancestor" list. Anyone else
remember this? I'm not sure what the status of the website is. Maybe Leslie Mahler
knows more.
Dave Morehouse
Hopkins, MN
-
John Steele Gordon
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
There is a book by Patricia Ann Scherzinger called Colonial Americans of
Royal and Noble Descent, Alleged, Proven and Disproven (Heritage Books,
1996). It gives the names of a vast number of colonial people, references
where the claim to royal or noble descent is to be found in books (not
journals, apparently), and states which ones the author thinks are bogus,
dubious, or insufficiently proven.
Not all the references are up to date. For instance Maria Johanna Somerset
(through whom my indisputable right to be styled Count Arundell comes) is
referenced only to Charles Henry Browning's Americans of Royal Descent
(1882) a notoriously unreliable work, and says it is insufficiently proven.
A statement in Browning wouldn't prove that the sun rises in the east. But
see British Roots of Maryland Families by Robert D. Barnes (pp 402-405) for
numerous more modern references to the literature.
Still it's a useful starting place. As far as I know, It's not on the web.
JSG
<mhollick@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1105766956.926631.278510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Royal and Noble Descent, Alleged, Proven and Disproven (Heritage Books,
1996). It gives the names of a vast number of colonial people, references
where the claim to royal or noble descent is to be found in books (not
journals, apparently), and states which ones the author thinks are bogus,
dubious, or insufficiently proven.
Not all the references are up to date. For instance Maria Johanna Somerset
(through whom my indisputable right to be styled Count Arundell comes) is
referenced only to Charles Henry Browning's Americans of Royal Descent
(1882) a notoriously unreliable work, and says it is insufficiently proven.
A statement in Browning wouldn't prove that the sun rises in the east. But
see British Roots of Maryland Families by Robert D. Barnes (pp 402-405) for
numerous more modern references to the literature.
Still it's a useful starting place. As far as I know, It's not on the web.
JSG
<mhollick@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1105766956.926631.278510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Is there a website (and perhaps I should start one) of emigrants to
North America with bogus or dubious royal lines. For instance, I
already know that the royal lines claimed for John Drake of Windsor, CT
and John Whitney of Watertown, MA have been disproven. I also descend
from Vincent Meigs of Killingworth, CT, William Barsham of Watertown,
MA, and Robert White of Messing, Essex, England, all of whom it seems
have bogus lines tied to them on the Internet as well as Ancestral File
at the LDS website. It is possible I *missed* some article, however, I
find that doubtful.
I would like confirmation of the following:
That the parentage of Vincent Meigs remains unknown: Best research:
Search for the Passengers of the Mary & John 1630" vol. 25, p. 47-8.
The parentage of William Barsham remains unknown: Best research: Robert
Charles Anderson "The Great Migration Begins; Immigrants to New England
1620-1633" Vol. 1 (NEHGS, Boston, 1995) 1:108-111.
The parentage of Robert White remains unknown: Best research:
"The Ancestry of Thomas Chalmers Brainerd" by Thomas C. Brainerd;
edited by Donald Lines Jacobus (Montreal, 1948)
Mary Walton Ferris, "Dawes-Gates Ancestral Lines" 2 vols. (n.p., 1943
and 1931)
"Genealogical Notes on the Founding of New England" by Ernest Flagg
(1926, reprint 1973)
"The Children of Robert White of Messing . . " NEHGR 55
(1901):22-31.
Much thanks.
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
In article <1105766956.926631.278510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
I've been fantasizing about this for a while now, and have brought it up
in various postings here sporadically since 1995 (search: 'bogus gateway
ancestors', or BGA, as a phrase in the archives). Someone else already
responded that Paul Reed had declared his intentions to do such a thing,
in the context of an ambitious encyclopedic coverage of immigrants,
though no roll-out date has been projected. What I have long had in
mind is something perhaps more modest that what Paul hopes eventually to
do, and which is pretty much like your examples: a simple handlist,
naming the immigrant, specifying (briefly) the claimed ancestry, noting
the flaw and citing the most recent and / or authoratitive dismissal. I
began a text file of such things that has never (yet) made it into a
webpage. Perhaps we should put our heads together on it.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
Is there a website (and perhaps I should start one) of emigrants to
North America with bogus or dubious royal lines.
I've been fantasizing about this for a while now, and have brought it up
in various postings here sporadically since 1995 (search: 'bogus gateway
ancestors', or BGA, as a phrase in the archives). Someone else already
responded that Paul Reed had declared his intentions to do such a thing,
in the context of an ambitious encyclopedic coverage of immigrants,
though no roll-out date has been projected. What I have long had in
mind is something perhaps more modest that what Paul hopes eventually to
do, and which is pretty much like your examples: a simple handlist,
naming the immigrant, specifying (briefly) the claimed ancestry, noting
the flaw and citing the most recent and / or authoratitive dismissal. I
began a text file of such things that has never (yet) made it into a
webpage. Perhaps we should put our heads together on it.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
In article <PmfGd.5873$3y4.3768@fe10.lga>,
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote:
Yes, this is the only thing of its kind out there now. If I remember
right, much of this book consists of a large cross-index of descendants
of immigrants down to about 1776, so there are many more line-items than
actual immigrants (or lines) judged. A much more efficient format would
be an updatable, web-based handlist of gateways-only (either immigrants
whose ancestry has been built on a false identification, or earlier
gateways who might efficiently cover the convergence of many parallel
claims, cross-referenced to their various immigrants). A work dealing
with alleged royal lines which do not involve an emigration (lines
remaining wholly within England) might be harder to pin to a specific
individual as a cataloguing device. Colonial (Quebec, United States,
Australia, Brazil, etc.) descents are easier to categorize since they
can be indexed or referred to by an (usually) unambiguous immigrant
founder.
As I said, I have had a non-operative link to such a list on my website
for some months (one of many never-yet-operative links, I'm afraid), but
with a couple of volunteers to bat around a beta-list, I might get
motivated to put something up.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote:
There is a book by Patricia Ann Scherzinger called Colonial Americans of
Royal and Noble Descent, Alleged, Proven and Disproven (Heritage Books,
1996). It gives the names of a vast number of colonial people, references
where the claim to royal or noble descent is to be found in books (not
journals, apparently), and states which ones the author thinks are bogus,
dubious, or insufficiently proven.
Not all the references are up to date. For instance Maria Johanna Somerset
(through whom my indisputable right to be styled Count Arundell comes) is
referenced only to Charles Henry Browning's Americans of Royal Descent
(1882) a notoriously unreliable work, and says it is insufficiently proven.
A statement in Browning wouldn't prove that the sun rises in the east. But
see British Roots of Maryland Families by Robert D. Barnes (pp 402-405) for
numerous more modern references to the literature.
Yes, this is the only thing of its kind out there now. If I remember
right, much of this book consists of a large cross-index of descendants
of immigrants down to about 1776, so there are many more line-items than
actual immigrants (or lines) judged. A much more efficient format would
be an updatable, web-based handlist of gateways-only (either immigrants
whose ancestry has been built on a false identification, or earlier
gateways who might efficiently cover the convergence of many parallel
claims, cross-referenced to their various immigrants). A work dealing
with alleged royal lines which do not involve an emigration (lines
remaining wholly within England) might be harder to pin to a specific
individual as a cataloguing device. Colonial (Quebec, United States,
Australia, Brazil, etc.) descents are easier to categorize since they
can be indexed or referred to by an (usually) unambiguous immigrant
founder.
As I said, I have had a non-operative link to such a list on my website
for some months (one of many never-yet-operative links, I'm afraid), but
with a couple of volunteers to bat around a beta-list, I might get
motivated to put something up.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Gjest
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
Dear Newsgroup,
Recently the royal ancestry of John Prescott of
Massachusetts was deemed disproven in an article appearing either in NEHGR or
TAG, James Prescott of New Hampshire`s was disproven several years ago and that
of Constant and Thomas Southworth of Massachusetts has gone from being
considered proven to unproven, though not yet conclusively disproven. Walter Lee
Shepard in AR 7 lists the following lines as being unproven or doubtful :
Reverend Pardon Tillingast, the afore mentioned Southworth and James and John
Prescott, one of Alice Freeman`s lines, John Washburn, Alice Tomes and John Drake.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Recently the royal ancestry of John Prescott of
Massachusetts was deemed disproven in an article appearing either in NEHGR or
TAG, James Prescott of New Hampshire`s was disproven several years ago and that
of Constant and Thomas Southworth of Massachusetts has gone from being
considered proven to unproven, though not yet conclusively disproven. Walter Lee
Shepard in AR 7 lists the following lines as being unproven or doubtful :
Reverend Pardon Tillingast, the afore mentioned Southworth and James and John
Prescott, one of Alice Freeman`s lines, John Washburn, Alice Tomes and John Drake.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Hal Bradley
RE: Bogus Royal Lines
One compilation of fraudulent lineages can be found here:
http://www.linkline.com/personal/xymox/ ... aud223.htm
http://www.linkline.com/personal/xymox/ ... aud224.htm
There are certainly more, but this is a good start. If in doubt, you can
always post the alleged ancestry on this newsgroup and hopefully will get a
response regarding its soundness.
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
From: lmahler@att.net [mailto:lmahler@att.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 11:07 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Bogus Royal Lines
The references you have listed seem to be pretty good,
and the supposed royal descents do appear to be false.
There are so many false claims,
they might even outnumber the real ones.
Some others I know of, that are false:
Deacon John Dunham of Mass.
Mary, wife of William Brewster of the Mayflower.
Leslie
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
http://www.linkline.com/personal/xymox/ ... aud223.htm
http://www.linkline.com/personal/xymox/ ... aud224.htm
There are certainly more, but this is a good start. If in doubt, you can
always post the alleged ancestry on this newsgroup and hopefully will get a
response regarding its soundness.
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
From: lmahler@att.net [mailto:lmahler@att.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 11:07 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Bogus Royal Lines
The references you have listed seem to be pretty good,
and the supposed royal descents do appear to be false.
There are so many false claims,
they might even outnumber the real ones.
Some others I know of, that are false:
Deacon John Dunham of Mass.
Mary, wife of William Brewster of the Mayflower.
Leslie
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
Is there a website (and perhaps I should start one) of emigrants to
North America with bogus or dubious royal lines. For instance, I
already know that the royal lines claimed for John Drake of Windsor,
CT
and John Whitney of Watertown, MA have been disproven. I also
descend
from Vincent Meigs of Killingworth, CT, William Barsham of Watertown,
MA, and Robert White of Messing, Essex, England, all of whom it seems
have bogus lines tied to them on the Internet as well as Ancestral
File
at the LDS website. It is possible I *missed* some article, however,
I
find that doubtful.
I would like confirmation of the following:
That the parentage of Vincent Meigs remains unknown: Best research:
Search for the Passengers of the Mary & John 1630" vol. 25, p. 47-8.
The parentage of William Barsham remains unknown: Best research:
Robert
Charles Anderson "The Great Migration Begins; Immigrants to New
England
1620-1633" Vol. 1 (NEHGS, Boston, 1995) 1:108-111.
The parentage of Robert White remains unknown: Best research:
"The Ancestry of Thomas Chalmers Brainerd" by Thomas C. Brainerd;
edited by Donald Lines Jacobus (Montreal, 1948)
Mary Walton Ferris, "Dawes-Gates Ancestral Lines" 2 vols. (n.p., 1943
and 1931)
"Genealogical Notes on the Founding of New England" by Ernest Flagg
(1926, reprint 1973)
"The Children of Robert White of Messing . . " NEHGR 55
(1901):22-31.
Much thanks.
-
John C. Brandon
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
and that of Constant and Thomas Southworth of Massachusetts has gone
from being >>considered proven to unproven, though not yet conclusively
disproven.
Don't know that it was ever really considered proven, but a close
reading of Ronald Marchant's book, _The Puritans and the church courts
in the Diocese of York, 1560-1642_, leaves one with greatly augmented
doubts.
-
Gjest
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
I'm game. I think it would be very helpful. It is always possible when
one finds something on Ancestral File or a personal website that it
could be true. However, it seems that if one had done all the kind of
research we would all expect, then that research would be published
and/or documented on the website. Most of these websites have no
footnotes, citations, or accompanying text whatsoever. That's usually
the giveaway. The lines given are usual really good to--links to
Edward III mostly. I guess if you're going bogus, you might as well as
go whole hog.
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
one finds something on Ancestral File or a personal website that it
could be true. However, it seems that if one had done all the kind of
research we would all expect, then that research would be published
and/or documented on the website. Most of these websites have no
footnotes, citations, or accompanying text whatsoever. That's usually
the giveaway. The lines given are usual really good to--links to
Edward III mostly. I guess if you're going bogus, you might as well as
go whole hog.
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In article <1105766956.926631.278510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
Is there a website (and perhaps I should start one) of emigrants to
North America with bogus or dubious royal lines.
I've been fantasizing about this for a while now, and have brought it
up
in various postings here sporadically since 1995 (search: 'bogus
gateway
ancestors', or BGA, as a phrase in the archives). Someone else
already
responded that Paul Reed had declared his intentions to do such a
thing,
in the context of an ambitious encyclopedic coverage of immigrants,
though no roll-out date has been projected. What I have long had in
mind is something perhaps more modest that what Paul hopes eventually
to
do, and which is pretty much like your examples: a simple handlist,
naming the immigrant, specifying (briefly) the claimed ancestry,
noting
the flaw and citing the most recent and / or authoratitive dismissal.
I
began a text file of such things that has never (yet) made it into a
webpage. Perhaps we should put our heads together on it.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
John C. Brandon
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
I guess if you're going bogus, you might as well as go whole >>hog.
Reminds me of what V.S. Pritchett said about the excessive personal
life of Ouida, the 19th-century bodice-ripping novelist: "... when one
is dealing in fantasy, it is not unnatural to help oneself."
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:PmfGd.5873$3y4.3768@fe10.lga...
<snip>
So now the question arises: did Maria Johanna Somerset herself and her
purported ancestry exist, any more than the "indisputable" right that her
alleged descendant claims? Or was she also a figment of snobbish imagination
& panglossian wish-fulfilment? You're not going to get an easy ride with
such cute asides, John.
Peter Stewart
news:PmfGd.5873$3y4.3768@fe10.lga...
<snip>
Not all the references are up to date. For instance Maria Johanna Somerset
(through whom my indisputable right to be styled Count Arundell comes) is
referenced only to Charles Henry Browning's Americans of Royal Descent
(1882) a notoriously unreliable work, and says it is insufficiently
proven.
So now the question arises: did Maria Johanna Somerset herself and her
purported ancestry exist, any more than the "indisputable" right that her
alleged descendant claims? Or was she also a figment of snobbish imagination
& panglossian wish-fulfilment? You're not going to get an easy ride with
such cute asides, John.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
Thanks Tony - I was merely ribbing John, not seriously questoining this. But
when delinquents like me get busy it's always worth making clarificaitons
like yours for the record.
Peter Stewart
""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s1e94139.049@CENTRAL_SVR2...
when delinquents like me get busy it's always worth making clarificaitons
like yours for the record.
Peter Stewart
""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s1e94139.049@CENTRAL_SVR2...
Maria Johanna (Somerset) (Lowther) Smith did exist. Her identity has
been fully proved and established, and reinforced by much recent
research.
Besides Richardson and Faris, please see: _British Roots of Maryland
Families_ (1999): 402-5.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
Maria Johanna (Somerset) (Lowther) Smith did exist. Her identity has
been fully proved and established, and reinforced by much recent
research.
Besides Richardson and Faris, please see: _British Roots of Maryland
Families_ (1999): 402-5.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
been fully proved and established, and reinforced by much recent
research.
Besides Richardson and Faris, please see: _British Roots of Maryland
Families_ (1999): 402-5.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
History Writer
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
John Steele Gordon wrote:
Not all the references are up to date. For instance Maria Johanna
Somerset
(through whom my indisputable right to be styled Count Arundell
comes)
Mr. Gordon: What???? "Indisputable"??? I dispute you. Holy Roman
Empire titles descend to male and female descendants, but not to
descendants of the famales. I believe you have misread the grant of
nobility. And after all aren't you a great American historian and
author of bestellers? Why are you making such silly assertions? By
the way, the thousands of female-line Arundell descendants in the UK do
NOT/NOT go around asserting they are Counts. Best Regards.
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
Why are you making such silly assertions? By the way, the thousands
of female-line Arundell descendants in the UK do
NOT/NOT go around asserting they are Counts.
Nor does this American descendant (and dozens of his cousins) living in
California. But, I believe Mr. Gordon was in jest.
Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California
-
Gjest
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
I'm still waiting for someone to realize that the throne of Scotland
belongs to me (having given up on France and Armenia). Bronwen
belongs to me (having given up on France and Armenia). Bronwen
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
In article <s1e95286.058@CENTRAL_SVR2>,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:
We may jest, but Jacobus writes about the New York lady who, in all
seriousness, wanted to paint the arms of William the Silent on her
carriage, based on the notorious bogus claims for the ancestry of Anneke
Jans Bogardus.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:
Why are you making such silly assertions? By the way, the thousands
of female-line Arundell descendants in the UK do
NOT/NOT go around asserting they are Counts.
Nor does this American descendant (and dozens of his cousins) living in
California. But, I believe Mr. Gordon was in jest.
We may jest, but Jacobus writes about the New York lady who, in all
seriousness, wanted to paint the arms of William the Silent on her
carriage, based on the notorious bogus claims for the ancestry of Anneke
Jans Bogardus.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Gjest
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
Saturday, 15 January, 2005
Dear Bronwen,
I'm afraid you must stand in line. I recall one 'Prince Michael
of Albany' has a standing claim to the throne of Scotland. At the same
time, having once perused a copy of his mildly amusing book (The
Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland) some time ago, I doubt there's been a
call to arms by Sean Connery or anyone else: perhaps the door's open
yet..........?
~ Recommend you learn to recite 'Scots wha hae' with a good
Glaswegian accent before ye call upon the clans.
As for France, why, 'tis just as well to have given up there.
Don't want to be called a Capet-bagger, wot?
Cheers,
John
lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear Bronwen,
I'm afraid you must stand in line. I recall one 'Prince Michael
of Albany' has a standing claim to the throne of Scotland. At the same
time, having once perused a copy of his mildly amusing book (The
Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland) some time ago, I doubt there's been a
call to arms by Sean Connery or anyone else: perhaps the door's open
yet..........?
~ Recommend you learn to recite 'Scots wha hae' with a good
Glaswegian accent before ye call upon the clans.
As for France, why, 'tis just as well to have given up there.
Don't want to be called a Capet-bagger, wot?
Cheers,
John
lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to realize that the throne of Scotland
belongs to me (having given up on France and Armenia). Bronwen
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
In article <1105842537.242910.260490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
therav3@aol.com wrote:
Now is the season for it--or, perhaps, for a special grace as lang's
your arm. And the birthday falls on a full moon this year . . .
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
therav3@aol.com wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to realize that the throne of Scotland
belongs to me...
~ Recommend you learn to recite 'Scots wha hae' ...
Now is the season for it--or, perhaps, for a special grace as lang's
your arm. And the birthday falls on a full moon this year . . .
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Sutliff
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
Barnes' book, like all others, is only as good as his sources. His source
for the Seymour family is very flawed and most importantly, although Robert
Seymour (alleged son of generation 5, Governor John Seymour) did exist, he
was not son of Governor Seymour. So anyone claiming an RD via Robert Seymour
cannot claim such as Robert's paternity is uncertain.
However, it is not noted by Barnes that Ann Seymour, daughter of Generation
2, was wife of Capt. Thomas Nuce of Jamestown, Virginia and I am not sure if
anyone has researched to see if she left descendants which would have an RD.
HS
""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s1e94139.049@CENTRAL_SVR2...
for the Seymour family is very flawed and most importantly, although Robert
Seymour (alleged son of generation 5, Governor John Seymour) did exist, he
was not son of Governor Seymour. So anyone claiming an RD via Robert Seymour
cannot claim such as Robert's paternity is uncertain.
However, it is not noted by Barnes that Ann Seymour, daughter of Generation
2, was wife of Capt. Thomas Nuce of Jamestown, Virginia and I am not sure if
anyone has researched to see if she left descendants which would have an RD.
HS
""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s1e94139.049@CENTRAL_SVR2...
Maria Johanna (Somerset) (Lowther) Smith did exist. Her identity has
been fully proved and established, and reinforced by much recent
research.
Besides Richardson and Faris, please see: _British Roots of Maryland
Families_ (1999): 402-5.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
John Brandon a.k.a. starb
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
Hi Henry,
I know I saw some letters concerning Gov. John Seymour and his property
at Bitton (I think) somewhere in one of the volumes of the Historical
Manuscripts Commission's publications. I could retrace my steps and
find them, unless you think they're already in Rev. Ellacombe's
_History of the Parish of Bitton_ ...
I know I saw some letters concerning Gov. John Seymour and his property
at Bitton (I think) somewhere in one of the volumes of the Historical
Manuscripts Commission's publications. I could retrace my steps and
find them, unless you think they're already in Rev. Ellacombe's
_History of the Parish of Bitton_ ...
-
Gjest
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
Oh, Prince Michael. Well, he'll have to stand behind me. I read his
book and...I'm not in it! And the reason I gave up on France is that I
just couldn't keep ingesting all that Bourbon! Much too sweet,
especially since I love to eat my Napoleon in the morning. {:-)
book and...I'm not in it! And the reason I gave up on France is that I
just couldn't keep ingesting all that Bourbon! Much too sweet,
especially since I love to eat my Napoleon in the morning. {:-)
-
Sutliff
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
"Prince Michael of Albany" is a fraud. His ancestry was invented and he is
not even Scottish. So perhaps Bronwen may yet reign. Please see:
http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/ ... stuart.htm
<therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1105842537.242910.260490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
not even Scottish. So perhaps Bronwen may yet reign. Please see:
http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/ ... stuart.htm
<therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1105842537.242910.260490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Saturday, 15 January, 2005
Dear Bronwen,
I'm afraid you must stand in line. I recall one 'Prince Michael
of Albany' has a standing claim to the throne of Scotland. At the same
time, having once perused a copy of his mildly amusing book (The
Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland) some time ago, I doubt there's been a
call to arms by Sean Connery or anyone else: perhaps the door's open
yet..........?
~ Recommend you learn to recite 'Scots wha hae' with a good
Glaswegian accent before ye call upon the clans.
As for France, why, 'tis just as well to have given up there.
Don't want to be called a Capet-bagger, wot?
Cheers,
John
lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to realize that the throne of Scotland
belongs to me (having given up on France and Armenia). Bronwen
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
Why are you making such silly assertions? By the way, the
thousands of female-line Arundell descendants in the UK do
NOT/NOT go around asserting they are Counts.
Nor does this American descendant (and dozens of his cousins) living
in
California. But, I believe Mr. Gordon was in jest.
We may jest, but Jacobus writes about the New York lady who, in all
seriousness, wanted to paint the arms of William the Silent on her
carriage, based on the notorious bogus claims for the ancestry of
Anneke
Jans Bogardus.
Nat Taylor
-----
True. But allow me to suggest a distinction with (I hope) a difference:
Anneke Jans was *not* descended from William the Silent, whereas
descendants of Maria Johanna (Somerset) (Lowther) Smith *are* descended
from Thomas, 1st Lord Arundell of Wardour; Count of the Holy Roman
Empire.
The "bogusness-ness" rightly highlighted in this discussion is not as
regards matters genealogical, rather matters (if you will) of juridical
interpretation.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
In article <s1ea627e.067@CENTRAL_SVR2>,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:
I see. There are multiple bogusnesses here, if you will. What I had in
mind was that it would have been heraldically bogus (even if the lady's
genealogical fantasy turned out to be true), as well as merely vulgar,
for the lady to paint said arms on her carriage. For every genealogist
who jokes about it, there are perhaps several who might take it
seriously.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:
We may jest, but Jacobus writes about the New York lady who, in all
seriousness, wanted to paint the arms of William the Silent on her
carriage, based on the notorious bogus claims for the ancestry of
Anneke Jans Bogardus.
True. But allow me to suggest a distinction with (I hope) a difference:
Anneke Jans was *not* descended from William the Silent, whereas
descendants of Maria Johanna (Somerset) (Lowther) Smith *are* descended
from Thomas, 1st Lord Arundell of Wardour; Count of the Holy Roman
Empire.
The "bogusness-ness" rightly highlighted in this discussion is not as
regards matters genealogical, rather matters (if you will) of juridical
interpretation.
I see. There are multiple bogusnesses here, if you will. What I had in
mind was that it would have been heraldically bogus (even if the lady's
genealogical fantasy turned out to be true), as well as merely vulgar,
for the lady to paint said arms on her carriage. For every genealogist
who jokes about it, there are perhaps several who might take it
seriously.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Gjest
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
Sunday, 16 January, 2005
Dear Tony,
I've a personal preference for Caerphilly (the castle) myself,
cracked tower and all. As I recall, it's been out of family hands
since Roger de Mortimer and Isabella 'the She-wolf' caused the last
Hugh to Despense with his tenure on 20 March 1326/27.....
Perhaps we can work out an arrangement: I'll take the castle say
April through September - ye can have it the other half of the year,
wot?
Cheers,
John
"Tony Hoskins" wrote:
Dear Tony,
I've a personal preference for Caerphilly (the castle) myself,
cracked tower and all. As I recall, it's been out of family hands
since Roger de Mortimer and Isabella 'the She-wolf' caused the last
Hugh to Despense with his tenure on 20 March 1326/27.....
Perhaps we can work out an arrangement: I'll take the castle say
April through September - ye can have it the other half of the year,
wot?
Cheers,
John
"Tony Hoskins" wrote:
I've got dibs on Caerphilly. Great lake. Like the swans. Excellent
local
cheese.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
lostcooper@yahoo.com> 01/16/05 09:33PM
I want my castle. Now. Bronwen
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:51:58 GMT, Nathaniel Taylor
<nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
One thing that bothers me about the idea of listing only the bogus
lines is that it would be quite some time (if ever) before such a list
included all of the many claimed but bogus gateway ancestors, with the
result that many would wrongly conclude that the absence of their
ancestor on the list implied that their gateway descent was genuine.
Since a large majority of claimed royal gateway ancestors are bogus,
it seems that adding in the genuine ones (with an indication to that
effect) would not increase the length of the list by a lot (at least
by percentage). There are probably also a lot which would fall in
some sort of middle ground of claimed but never carefully checked.
(It would be expected that most of these would eventually turn out to
be bogus.) Such cases could be listed as "unknown" or as "probably
false" if there were a clear "red flag" (such as being listed in
Browning but not in RD500). Adding items of "unknown" type to the
list would not take much initial time, since it would only involve
copying the reference, without the considerable extra research time
required to label one as proven or bogus. It would also provide a
convenient list of cases where more research was required.
Stewart Baldwin
<nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
I've been fantasizing about this for a while now, and have brought it up
in various postings here sporadically since 1995 (search: 'bogus gateway
ancestors', or BGA, as a phrase in the archives). Someone else already
responded that Paul Reed had declared his intentions to do such a thing,
in the context of an ambitious encyclopedic coverage of immigrants,
though no roll-out date has been projected. What I have long had in
mind is something perhaps more modest that what Paul hopes eventually to
do, and which is pretty much like your examples: a simple handlist,
naming the immigrant, specifying (briefly) the claimed ancestry, noting
the flaw and citing the most recent and / or authoratitive dismissal. I
began a text file of such things that has never (yet) made it into a
webpage. Perhaps we should put our heads together on it.
One thing that bothers me about the idea of listing only the bogus
lines is that it would be quite some time (if ever) before such a list
included all of the many claimed but bogus gateway ancestors, with the
result that many would wrongly conclude that the absence of their
ancestor on the list implied that their gateway descent was genuine.
Since a large majority of claimed royal gateway ancestors are bogus,
it seems that adding in the genuine ones (with an indication to that
effect) would not increase the length of the list by a lot (at least
by percentage). There are probably also a lot which would fall in
some sort of middle ground of claimed but never carefully checked.
(It would be expected that most of these would eventually turn out to
be bogus.) Such cases could be listed as "unknown" or as "probably
false" if there were a clear "red flag" (such as being listed in
Browning but not in RD500). Adding items of "unknown" type to the
list would not take much initial time, since it would only involve
copying the reference, without the considerable extra research time
required to label one as proven or bogus. It would also provide a
convenient list of cases where more research was required.
Stewart Baldwin
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
I've got dibs on Caerphilly. Great lake. Like the swans. Excellent local
cheese.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
cheese.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
lostcooper@yahoo.com> 01/16/05 09:33PM
I want my castle. Now. Bronwen
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
I see. There are multiple bogusnesses here, if you will. What I had
in mind was that it would have been heraldically bogus (even if the
lady's genealogical fantasy turned out to be true), as well as merely
vulgar, for the lady to paint said arms on her carriage. For every
genealogist who jokes about it, there are perhaps several who might
take it seriously.
Nat Taylor
----
This is very true. I am constantly caught short, witnessing too many
genealogists' lack of a sense of proportion, sense of statistical
probability (I could go on), not to mention a sense of humor.
Tony Hoskins
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
In article <elimu0960pbo1adebt8c31qvdph49ij4r1@4ax.com>,
Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote:
Fair enough. There have been various posted lists of people in Roberts,
or Weis, or Faris / Richardson; I suppose we could start with these,
noting the category of people who are in these sources but whose lines
have noted problems or uncertainties. Another step is to list all the
immigrants in the eight (or more?) editions of Browning's _Americans of
Royal Descent_. Any volunteers? I think some editions don't even have
an index or table of contents (though maybe that's just the dog-eared
copies I've seen). I'd love to see a compiled list of immigrants
figuring in Browning.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:51:58 GMT, Nathaniel Taylor
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
I've been fantasizing about this for a while now, and have brought it up
in various postings here sporadically since 1995 (search: 'bogus gateway
ancestors', or BGA, as a phrase in the archives). Someone else already
responded that Paul Reed had declared his intentions to do such a thing,
in the context of an ambitious encyclopedic coverage of immigrants,
though no roll-out date has been projected. What I have long had in
mind is something perhaps more modest that what Paul hopes eventually to
do, and which is pretty much like your examples: a simple handlist,
naming the immigrant, specifying (briefly) the claimed ancestry, noting
the flaw and citing the most recent and / or authoratitive dismissal. I
began a text file of such things that has never (yet) made it into a
webpage. Perhaps we should put our heads together on it.
One thing that bothers me about the idea of listing only the bogus
lines is that it would be quite some time (if ever) before such a list
included all of the many claimed but bogus gateway ancestors, with the
result that many would wrongly conclude that the absence of their
ancestor on the list implied that their gateway descent was genuine.
Since a large majority of claimed royal gateway ancestors are bogus,
it seems that adding in the genuine ones (with an indication to that
effect) would not increase the length of the list by a lot (at least
by percentage). There are probably also a lot which would fall in
some sort of middle ground of claimed but never carefully checked.
(It would be expected that most of these would eventually turn out to
be bogus.) Such cases could be listed as "unknown" or as "probably
false" if there were a clear "red flag" (such as being listed in
Browning but not in RD500). Adding items of "unknown" type to the
list would not take much initial time, since it would only involve
copying the reference, without the considerable extra research time
required to label one as proven or bogus. It would also provide a
convenient list of cases where more research was required.
Fair enough. There have been various posted lists of people in Roberts,
or Weis, or Faris / Richardson; I suppose we could start with these,
noting the category of people who are in these sources but whose lines
have noted problems or uncertainties. Another step is to list all the
immigrants in the eight (or more?) editions of Browning's _Americans of
Royal Descent_. Any volunteers? I think some editions don't even have
an index or table of contents (though maybe that's just the dog-eared
copies I've seen). I'd love to see a compiled list of immigrants
figuring in Browning.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
John Brandon aka starbuck
Re: Bogus Royal Lines
It's the appendix to the 5th Report, in case anyone be interested ...