Danny the Aristo

[Clitheroekid]

I've just been watching "Who do you think you are?" (available on iPlayer at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... danny-dyer) I've never seen the programme befire, but it was recommended to me and I would wholeheartedly pass that recommendation on - it was an excellent hour's viewing.

The subject of the film was an actor called Danny Dyer. Not being an Eastenders watcher I'm afraid I'd never heard of him, but he was obviously a bit of a Cockney geezer and the early attempts at tracing his ancestry weren't promising.

But after a bit of research an aristocratic connection was found, and the end result was surprising to put it mildly. I'll not give it away in case anyone wants to watch the programme.

So my DAK is this. DAK (or can make a reasonable estimate of) the chances of a random person being able to trace an aristocratic ancestor? The programme substantially increased the odds by going back through both the male and the female line, and it was actually the female line that proved the productive one.

It made for a great - and quite moving - story, but it would be interesting to know whether a similar tale could, with a bit of selective genealogy, be constructed for most people.

[swill453]

Another way of looking at it is - If you take a random aristo from 22 generations ago, how many descendants do you think might be alive today?

Or - how many of us aren't descended from aristos?

Scott.

[Sussexlad]

My problem with all this now, is the casual way people complete the records. It appears there's no compulsion to tell the truth or even enter anything if you don't want to. Even if there is a trail, how much confidence can you have in it and that ignores illegitimacy?

[dionaeamuscipula]

So my DAK is this. DAK (or can make a reasonable estimate of) the chances of a random person being able to trace an aristocratic ancestor? The programme substantially increased the odds by going back through both the male and the female line, and it was actually the female line that proved the productive one.

I recall seeing somewhere that pretty much everyone is descended from royalty.

Take a generation as being 25 years, and go back 25 generations. That takes us back to about 1400. You have 2^25 = 33.55m ancestors, of course not allowing for duplicates.

In 1400 the estimated population of the UK was about 4m, so the likelihood is that each of us is descended from all of them. Even taking into account the whole population of Europe, you are not far off - estimated at under 80m in 1400.

You may call me Sire, Your Majesty is a little too formal IMV.

DM

[stevensfo]

Not forgetting of course that no matter how much we manipulate history, a king was just someone with a bigger sword than his neighbour, and more friends. His friends then become the aristos, as a reward, protection and insurance for the king, who then approaches the church for a cuddly 'you scratch my back...' relationship for mutual support.

It's all worth it in the end though. Can you imagine a mantlepiece without a jubilee mug?


Steve

[Slarti]

Another way of looking at it is - If you take a random aristo from 22 generations ago, how many descendants do you think might be alive today?

Or - how many of us aren't descended from aristos?

Scott.

Well it was his 22*great granda so at that generation there would be 16,777,216 22*great grandparents, assuming that all of the generations were even, which they wouldn't be.

So the probability is that we are all descended from some aristo or other, rising to almost certainty if you had female ancestors who worked in a big house.

The problem is proving any of it, as in I've got a few bastards in my ancestry where there is no way of telling who the father was. Might have been another working class lad who didn't survive to the birth of the baby, but it could be a more interesting explanation.

Cheers
Slarti

[Slarti]

My problem with all this now, is the casual way people complete the records. It appears there's no compulsion to tell the truth or even enter anything if you don't want to. Even if there is a trail, how much confidence can you have in it and that ignores illegitimacy?

As far as I can tell, people have always lied or made mistakes in the record keeping, regarding who the father was.

Pity we don't follow the much more logical practice of tracing family through the female line. You usually have a pretty good idea who the mother was, whereas the father ???

Slarti

[foundone]

You only have to look at our current royalty cast doubt on the true identities of the fathers.

[UncleEbenezer]

I've heard suggested, we're not merely all descended from royalty, but we're all descended from Charlemagne.

I don't quite believe it either, but I imagine the chances of "Danny" being his descendent are pretty high: perhaps 100% (to the nearest percent). Though tracing anyone's ancestry that far back through a doubling of the number of lines each generation would make a needle-in-a-haystack look easy.

[DiamondEcho]

I took an interest in our family's genealogy about 20 years ago. It was triggered by one of my grand-parents or G-GP having left amongst their 'affairs' [dox etc] a note dating from the late 1800s suggesting how our family name had evolved over centuries. And it also included a drawing of a coat of arms.

So imagining my surname was Diamond [and I assure you it's not ]
Now Diamond
Previously Diamonde
Previously Dimonde
Previously Dymende

And the document suggested the earliest iteration derived from a village in the SW of England called Dymende. Way back names often derived from places where they lived and/or their occupation. Anyway my parents were passing through this [mythical, I've changed the real name] parish of Dymende one week and dropped in to the council for an hour or two, or maybe church or similar, and had access to the parish records. There was found info that x-reffed with the note from my ancestor's affairs. At that point I could have decided the case was closed, the evidence was sufficient and those 'arms' were rightfully mine. IME this is how quite a lot of people arrive at believing they have discovered their family arms. Or perhaps a relative tells them the info and they just believe it since they want to.

Back in those days I was studying science including aspects of the philosophy of science, so was a follower of The Scientific Method, and in some ways still am. In short that meant I was unable to accept those arms were rightfully mine unless I could prove it. I applied for access to the British Library for access and was granted it after some further persuasion. [This was before the records were on-line]. I then proceeded to try and start from myself and work backwards. It was very hard going, even my parents had trouble remembering the precise place AND date of birth of their own grand-parents, and it got exponentially harder with each step back. Eventually we got confirmed info back to about 1820, whereabouts the records seem to get decidedly patchy.

That's how the situation rested for many years, there being a suggestion of the arms, but me never feeling they'd been proven. Until some years later a previously unknown name-sake from another part of the country got in touch with my parents; he was a very veeeery distant relative. He was a retiree who had the time, a lot of interest, plus the IT skills. And he'd investigated the family tree going back across centuries and various continents. Plus who these people were, their occupations and so on. He'd published a book [like 'vanity publishing', just a couple of hundred copies printed] with all this info, that he thought might interest relatives, close and distant, and indeed I have a copy of his remarkable work.

I don't recall quite how far that book traces things, perhaps 300-350 years at the max. IME unless you were an aristocrat earlier than that the likelihood of records existing/surviving is very small. So when I have previously seen episodes of 'Who do you think you are?' I've often been surprised at the detail they get even going way back. And also how they always find some aristo or something 'shocking'. I'm left wondering what happens with any episodes where the researchers find they can't go back before say 1860, and in the event find nothing much of interest at all; I can't say I've seen any episodes that pan out like that.

p.s. Just about every American I've met with any British ancestors they've a family tree for, seems to claim lineage from William The Conqueror. Oh and there must have been about 1/2 million British migrants on HMS Mayflower too - hehe right

[stevensfo]

I took an interest in our family's genealogy about 20 years ago.

I was interested in genealogy when I was young and made some notes which were forgotten for decades. When I was about 35, my Dad told me about a cousin who lived 'up north', hadn't seen for many years and he still had her phone number.

It was like a mushroom cloud, discovering parts of my family tree I'd never known about. Thank God for genealogy software! My hand drawn family trees became much easier to update.

I lost interest after a while due to 'information overload'. I don't know how to proceed. I've got my tree on Ancestry.co.uk and pay the yearly subscriptions but don't have time to pursue it. Once you go to the early 1800s, it becomes quite tricky and incredibly time consuming.

It's on my list of things to do when I retire. That list is even now, very long, and I fear that I'm going to be very busy!


Steve

[gryffron]

I've often been surprised at the detail they get even going way back. And also how they always find some aristo or something 'shocking'. I'm left wondering what happens with any episodes where the researchers find they can't go back before say 1860, and in the event find nothing much of interest at all;

True. But even back to 1860 gives you what, 6 generations, 64 ancestors. The program makers only need ONE of those family lines to trace back to something interesting and they've got a story. They can ignore all of the others, It's not like they're trying to provide a complete picture. Just one colourful branch. I have noticed they often ignore one side of the family completely. Presumably for the very reasons you mention.

gryff

[LadyGagarin]

If you are of e.g. Irish, Scottish, Polish extraction, or some parts of Italy, chances are, you will be of royal descent at some or other remove - big deal. Still, family is important. You don't get to think it makes you better than anyone else, but it's important to know these things.

LadyG

[Slarti]

I lost interest after a while due to 'information overload'. I don't know how to proceed. I've got my tree on Ancestry.co.uk and pay the yearly subscriptions but don't have time to pursue it. Once you go to the early 1800s, it becomes quite tricky and incredibly time consuming.

Steve

Once you get pre 1837 and general registration http://www.freereg.org.uk/ is a good online source of parish register transcriptions. Also worth looking for an Online Parish Clerk of any districts you are interested in.

Cheers
Slarti

[Slarti]

I don't recall quite how far that book traces things, perhaps 300-350 years at the max. IME unless you were an aristocrat earlier than that the likelihood of records existing/surviving is very small. So when I have previously seen episodes of 'Who do you think you are?' I've often been surprised at the detail they get even going way back. And also how they always find some aristo or something 'shocking'. I'm left wondering what happens with any episodes where the researchers find they can't go back before say 1860, and in the event find nothing much of interest at all; I can't say I've seen any episodes that pan out like that.

There have been some where they found the interesting bit in the mid 1800s, or even later. Bruce Forsyth's was a bit like that. Also, I have read interviews with some famous people who had been asked to do WDYTYA and then nothing came of it because there was nobody interesting in their ancestry, from a TV point of view.

Slarti

[k333]

You only have to look at our current royalty cast doubt on the true identities of the fathers.

Oh! Do tell us which ones have aroused your suspicion

- K

[stewamax]

Remember though that before around 1750-1800 the population of England was essentially rural (as it still is in parts of eastern Europe). Small villages were the norm, and populations within those villages were inbred and must have bordered on incestuous. This severely limits the width-wise spread of your forebears. And as you work further and further back, this endogamy gets more and more pronounced: the few Great and Good (well Great anyway) travelled, albeit with difficulty, but the rest simply stayed put. Only coastal towns - especially those that traded with continental Europe - had the advantage of regular fresh blood.
There were always exceptions: soldiers, traders, masons and more recently the travelling navvies who built the canals, roads and railways. Some seed fell on good ground, so to speak. The numerous servants of the RC Church were - in theory at least - celibate, but how far the travelling Friars kept this rule (with no one to oversee them) is untold.

If my sixth great-grandfather (say around 1700) was a farm labourer from Little Something, it is not unlikely that my twelfth also came from there or nearby. Even further back though, we had the benefit of an infusion of Angle, Saxon, Jute and Nordic blood: in other words, the indigenous population stayed put (unless they were running away in terror!) but the invaders came to them.

So the likelihood of being descended from an aristo depends quite a lot on what part of the country your distant forebears came from.

[Slarti]

If my sixth great-grandfather (say around 1700) was a farm labourer from Little Something, it is not unlikely that my twelfth also came from there or nearby

It does depend on which part of the country you were from.

In the Northumbria (and possibly Cumbria?) it was common practice for "farm servants" to be hired for a year at a hiring fair. Sometimes this would lead to a "permanent" position on a farm from the servant and their family (the whole family would be hired and work either in the farmhouse or on the land) or they would migrate up and down the county, over the years. One of my wife's ancestor families was this type of farm servant and have been right buggers to trace from here in Essex as you would find one or 2 baptisms or burials in a church and then the next child could be born 50 miles away. By the time they appeared in the 1851 census there were 4 generations of them with births ranging from just outside Berwick on Tweed down to Halton Lea Gate, just in modern Cumbria and dates ranging from 1769 to 1851. I have traced further back, but that gives a flavour.

Also, in that area, in the 1500s the blood got well and truly mixed by the Border Reivers raiding back and forth, capturing women as well as livestock.

And of course, in 1745, there was fun and games as far south as Derby.

Also drovers were not uncommon, at least up until the coming of the railways, to bring cattle on the hoof into the bigger cities.

But yes, in the main, people didn't move about as much until the industrial revolution, but I think that there was a higher percentage of migration than most realise.

Slarti

[stevensfo]

Once you get pre 1837 and general registration http://www.freereg.org.uk/ is a good online source of parish register transcriptions. Also worth looking for an Online Parish Clerk of any districts you are interested in.

Thanks a lot for that, Slarti. I got loads of information a few years ago from the online census and still need to put it all together. I was very lucky in working in Mill Hill from 1997 to 2001 and occasionally went down to the big place where they had all this info. Only a few stops on the underground.

I have about three boxes full of notes, photos, letters etc that I want to condense into one document, one day.

It does get a bit emotional sometimes. My Father's paternal side in Wales was always a mystery and it was believed that his Grandmother and Grandfather must have split up, since their children were sent to live with relatives. After some research, I found that she had started training as an assistant teacher at the age of 13. (c1885). The Headmaster was her father and his diary is online! She reached teacher status but then married and had loads of kids, then died from some rare cancer at the age of 40! Problem solved, but all attempts to contact relatives via Ancestry.com have failed.

Likewise, looking at the census for Kings Lynn, I discover my G..g..g.mother/father living next door to each other when they were kids. Cue Judy Garland singing 'The boy next door'.

Steve

[Jan001]

I'm left wondering what happens with any episodes where the researchers find they can't go back before say 1860, and in the event find nothing much of interest at all; I can't say I've seen any episodes that pan out like that.

That's because they do the research before filming starts and if the researchers don't find anything of interest then they don't bother to film an episode about that person.

Examples include Cherie Blair and Michael Parkinson. No doubt many more.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 81451.html

Jan