World Families Forums - Members of BBC History TV in Uk Don't Understand Pedigrees

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 25, 2017, 06:15:11 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  Members of BBC History TV in Uk Don't Understand Pedigrees
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Members of BBC History TV in Uk Don't Understand Pedigrees  (Read 1610 times)
Eric Brewster44th
Offline Offline

Posts: 20

« on: April 05, 2007, 11:35:06 AM »

A good portion of the BBC History Television members of an such named forum in the UK apparently do not understand pedigrees as we understand them here.   I am a member of the BBC HTV forum website and I have got into a long standing historical debate with a few people there that have Viking and Norman roots.

They feel that anyone tracing their family back to 500AD and those claiming that their ancestors were related to Pendragon King Arthur's friends etc is mere believing in old myths etc.   My recient Genealogy Research in the Brewster Family has indicated to me, that the Manns and the Brewsters were related; an William Brewer in the 12th Century had married an Mann woman.....some pronounced it Mohun at that time, and this William Brewer had lived in the 11th Century, he had been an advisor to King John Lackland I and was even deeded lands in Dorset etc for services that he had rendered to High King John Lackland of Nottinghamshire.   This William Brewer is the same as the Brewsters that went to Plymouth, Massachusetts and helped found the Plymouth seems that some devoted members of the BBC HTV forum have a hard time in accepting what I have found out.

I have also found out too, that with the help of such Family Clan Name Maps of Scotland and Ireland that the Brewsters had the very ancient names of Brehon, Briennie, Brienne, Breheny etc.   These important names go right back to the 538-544AD when King Fergus MacGillicuddy's daughter, Gweniviere; whom had married Pendragon King Arthur Ap Uthur Ap Aurelius, and their incrediable saga that had been played out for nearly 30yrs or so.   The Breheny Clansmen and Clanswomen were 3-4 cousins to the MacGillicuddies, this owing to several Manns in the 11th to 12 centuries marrying several Brewer contemparies; there is quite abit of evidence suggesting that the Brehons had moved to France using the French names of Brienne or Briennies and even some evidence of an Marie Brienne marrying the french king and producing heirs to him, he appointing her to Emperess of Constantinople.   Then a great rush of kings of Britain after William The Conqueror, wanting to get married into the french Brienne noble lines.

So why is it hard to believe the Mainline Brewster Family had such a remote past, I find the doubters questioning me about this remote past and them saying it could not have happened!   If not then why does my family have 5 different genetic pools and Surnames all leading up to the same remote past in Northern Ireland and leading to an kingly relocation in Scotland at the birthing of the Fergusson Mainline Family beginnings around 544-560 AD at the failure of King Arthur's Summer Realm?

Eric Brewster The 44th Brewster Historian
Offline Offline

Posts: 1321

« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2007, 12:57:53 AM »

I think it'll be interesting to see if genetic genealogy can ever shed some light on pedigrees like that.

The unfortunate thing about family trees going back into such ancient days is that there is no way to verify or refute them.  We don't know for sure whether the tree is valid or if somebody 1000 years ago did some sloppy genealogical research.  Doing research would have been even harder back then because of the difficulty of travel, the lack of paper documents, and the fact that there weren't last names and many different people might be named alike.  Nobles often rated their importance by how many kings and queens they were descended from, so there was a definite incentive to "jumping to conclusions."

Since your family can trace its decent to the European nobility, you have access to a lot more records than most of us and can likely verify back into the medieval era (there were books and manuscripts just listing nobles and their families).  There is no way to prove (or disprove) any records beyond that, unfortunately.  Even if you are not, in fact, descended from King Arthur, you can still take a lot of pride in the part of your pedigree that is verifiable.

I do not know the feasibility of trying to prove descent from one specific ancestor that far back, but DNA research is advancing rapidly and it may be possible at some time in the future.  One can always hope, because that would be pretty close to the "holy grail" of genealogy.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2007, 01:04:53 AM by Biscuits » Logged
Gary Corbett
Offline Offline

Posts: 17

« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2007, 02:51:34 PM »

There has been a great amount of effort expended in researching the pedigrees of royalty.
One excellent resource is a book called Plantagenet Ancestry,by Douglas Richardson.It is an updating and cleaning up of an earlier work by David Faris.
What this book does,is to work backwards into Great Britain,from the starting point of an immigrant into Colonial America.
If you are extremely lucky-as I was-then you have an immigrant ancestor that is documented in the book.
Mine is Col. Thomas Ligon.
He was the Surveyor of Henrico Co. VA,and 2nd cousins with Governor Berkeley.
The book documents their descent from Geoffrey Plantagenet,Count of Anjou.Everybody that gets traced back in this book,gets traced back to Geoffrey Plantagenet.That is the actual focus of the book.
Interestingly,though,one can follow the ancestry back of any ancestor that came from royalty,as this fact will be mentioned in the text.You will have to do a lot of flipping around in the book in order to follow these things back,which is time consuming,but very rewarding.
One of my recent projects has been to do just that.
It will surprise you,if you get into studying this,for the reason that you will find connections you never imagined.These people lived in a sort of closed society,wherein they married into each other's Norman and other families.If you can verify descent from one,then you likely will have a descent from a great many others.
My intial reaction years ago was to scoff,but I've come to believe this field is actually highly accurate.As with anything man does,there will always be errors-but they get discovered and corrected.It isn't an easy thing,digging through ancient paperwork-some of which doesn't even exist any more.Documentation of royal connections has always been done,though,for a lot of reasons.The data is much more believable than some other things you may run into.
I've found Thomas Ligon to have what I consider to be a reliable paper trail back to many kings,queens, and Norman knights and Marcher Lords-Edward Longshanks,Gilbert de Clare,Guillaume le Marechal(William Marshal),etc.
The thing is,though,that for most people,these things may never be proveable with DNA technology.
The number of people that are in a direct male line from a remote ancestor is way smaller than the descendants that come through a female line or lines.And many lines have a lot of changing back and forth from a male to a female,etc.So most of the man's descendants are NOT going to have his Y chromosome.Doesn't make you any less his offspring-just can't be proved by a Y test.
As per the BBC television audience,they'd probably be surprised to learn that there are FAR more descendants of English royalty in America than there are in all of Great Britain-and with more reliable paper trails,in many instances!!
« Last Edit: May 05, 2007, 02:56:02 PM by Gary Corbett » Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.264 seconds with 17 queries.