General Royal Genealogical questions


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Mechanics don't make that much - they have to purchase supplies and tools. Sure, I understand that genealogists need to have access to certain things, but 70 to 100 an hour is very high for a field that has become essentially digitized. Granted, they will need to research lots of books, but those are accessible through the internet also. Perhaps I don't understand the scope of what the professionals do, but to me it seems like an absurd price.

I also don't understand how "you get what you pay for". Don't most people have access to the same records? Wouldn't this just take more time and dedication from someone to do it right? I'm not arguing, but I just can't understand that high of a price.

Is there much fraud in ancestry research, meaning people who sell services but don't deliver as promised? I could see this being a factor that drives prices up - but still... that is a ton of money. I expected around 40 an hour, not double that.
 
Ish, thanks for your reply.
You are showing me how little that I truly know about hierarchy.
 
Not a problem.

In Britain, the system is a bit complicated. From a legal standpoint there are three types of people - the monarch, the peers, and the commons. Anyone who is not either the monarch or a peer is a commoner. This can be seen in the division of parliament; the monarch is unable to sit in either House, the Peers hold seats in the House of Lords (or they did, I'm not entirely sure how the system works now, but up until the reforms began, if you were a peer you had a seat in the House of Lords), and the commoners are elected as MPs to sit in the House of Commons - anyone who does not hold a peerage or is the monarch, even a Royal in theory, can run for election to the House of Commons.

Within royals, the order of precedent is divided by gender; the monarch and his/her spouse is at the top of their respective genders (and the monarch is the only person that outranks their spouse). For the male precedent, rank tends to go the monarch's son, the monarch's grandson, etc, in the order of birth (the elder son coming before the younger son, who comes before the elder son's eldest son, with the youngest son's youngest son being last), then the monarch's siblings, cousin's, etc - the further away in relation to the monarch you are, the further down in the precedent you are. I'm not entirely sure, but I would assume that the husbands of any women would come after the woman's brothers (so I would guess that Tim would come after Edward, but this is a guess and I'm sure Bertie can correct me). In practice we sometimes see the direct-line taking precedent over the younger sons - so William will sometimes take precedent over Andrew. Similar follows with the women; the daughters of the monarch come first, then the daughters-in-law, then the granddaughters, then the granddaughters-in-law, etc. For the in-laws, if they arrive at an event with their husband, they take their precedent from him instead of their own; likewise if a child does something with a parent they'll likely take their parent's precedent.

For the peerage, within Britain the highest is the Dukes, followed by Marques, Earls, Viscounts, Barons, then Baronets. The Prince of Wales comes first, then royal dukedoms - that is the Dukes who are also Royal - and then it's based on what realm the title is from and how old the title is - English titles come first, then Scottish ones, then Great Britain, then Ireland, then the UK.
 
WarHiker said:
Mechanics don't make that much - they have to purchase supplies and tools. Sure, I understand that genealogists need to have access to certain things, but 70 to 100 an hour is very high for a field that has become essentially digitized. Granted, they will need to research lots of books, but those are accessible through the internet also. Perhaps I don't understand the scope of what the professionals do, but to me it seems like an absurd price.

I also don't understand how "you get what you pay for". Don't most people have access to the same records? Wouldn't this just take more time and dedication from someone to do it right? I'm not arguing, but I just can't understand that high of a price.

Is there much fraud in ancestry research, meaning people who sell services but don't deliver as promised? I could see this being a factor that drives prices up - but still... that is a ton of money. I expected around 40 an hour, not double that.
Click to expand...

It's probably a combination of time, mileage reimbursement/gas, paying for copies of vital records, obituaries, etc... Believe me, on on one trip to the courthouse my dad and I spent $52 for death and birth records. Getting vital records can add up pretty fast. Last spring I was charged $9.00 for three obituaries from an out of state library.

No, not everyone has access to the same records, depending on the state. You may have to prove you're directly related to someone or get that person's written permission before the clerk will release the records. It really depends on the state. I love Missouri because some of their older death records have been digitized. I love Texas because their birth index for the 1970's is on Ancestry, which I how I was able to prove that Drew Brees is my cousin.

Not everything is available whether it has to do with funding of a digitization project or records haven't been found yet. I'm still waiting for my great-grandma's birth record to get digitized. She was born in what is now Ukraine, but the record is found in a Russian Archive. She had an older brother and I found the record from him, but not her's...yet... You have to be willing to wait before you're able to break down a brickwall. But that's why you have other family lines to work on. :) I'm working on both sides of my family and when I smack a brickwall with one side I work on another.

I use a combination of Ancestry (when I'm at the library), FamilySearch.com, Findagrave.com, Facebook and Google. You'd be shocked to see what you could find through Google. I downloaded a few family history books through Google, figure out who my 3rd-great grandma's parents were, and found a history of my 3rd great-grandpa.
 
the prices that I listed were for Ancestry.com's own professional genis. For this reason, I thought they would not seek paper records, yet hinge upon ancestry's digital records. Of course, this could be one place where I underestimate the difficulty.

I'm sure it also is tough to wade through the piles of incorrect ties that other users have put together. I see so many duplicate spouses and children that it is sickening. I guess many people just copy other's information without checking them or at least viewing the date. Sure, their father was born after they were..... makes me laugh.

I think doing geni work for people would be a fun side job.
 
When you are writing down names of people, first names or surnames, be certain to copy the spelling exactly as it is written.
Sometimes you come across so many variations of the spelling, you may assume it is not the same person. However, it may just be the same person!
​
 
Your local LDS church may be of great help to you. They have the best source of Genealogy anywhere. Altho they don't record deaths the christenings and marriages are a great help. They have over a billion names listed. Give them a go. You should at least find them very helpful. Our LDS church works on donations they don't charge a fee. The people there are very keen volunteers.

Also we have a website named Trove that has old newspapers scanned. You must have a site in the US or elsewhere that does the same. We just type in a name and find lots of useful stuff about a person.
 
Thank You Tarlita. I hadn't considered the LDS previously.
 
The Family History Center

If you live in a town that has an LDS temple, they is probably an LDS genealogy center nearby. It will be called the Family History Center.

They will love to help you.

On the question of royal ancestry, I once heard a British professor of history theorize that the reason that distant descent was so common was because of the black death. I don't know if I agree with that entirely. We are talking about a class of men who, by and large, knew no restrictions on their less than moral behavior. They all thought that any woman equal to themselves or lower, not blood related and not a nun, was available. And there are some exceptions to that. Those women on a lower social scale had little choice, depending on the power of the man in question. And all this in times when there was zero birth control. Even in this modern era, some royal men and women have managed to produce children without benefit of a spouse.

So, as a born and bred LDS woman who has read a lot of family group sheets, I can tell you that royal descent found several generations back is very common. The closer you get to the here and now, the rarer.
I am no genealogist, by the way. I never got much into it.
Though I have helped out with some record gathering projects. It can be fascinating and tragic reading. I was given a pile of photo copied death records from an old west town.....shootouts, suicide, toddlers turning boiling cauldrons over on themselves. WOW. I also had some ledgers from Ellis Island. These were at a time when the records were hand written. You could really tell when the clerk was fresh in the morning and when he was tired out in the afternoon. The idea was to type the entries out on cards for digitizing. These cards went through many checks. I was just the first step.

Happy New Year!!:)
 
I don't know how helpful the LDS would really be, especially if they only have hand written information. I am in a part of the country, where none of my ancestors lived. All of their records would be on the east coast, and I am in the south west. So......... I think I will need to stay online and use digital sources.

I did notice that several of my lines go through the wives, so this is not as strong as if they were to go directly through the male lines. This has really been a great finding of mine, and I look forward to verifying things.
 
LDS records

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

Much of it has been submitted by the families involved.


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


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



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

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

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

I don't want to think of the worst possible, but I hope that I could handle it.
 
On my father's side of the family, there is Polish Royalty. This has been by word of mouth and I'm not sure if there is documentation of this.

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

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

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

Every family whether they are royal or not have some type of scandal or something that happened that isn't talked about much or the relative that embarrasses everyone.
 
With great power comes great re-scandalility
 
I have been dealing with scandal for my entire life. My family was vilified for claiming royal lineage. Here is a short synapsis:

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

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

So, with this controversy, I was glad to find multiple other royal connections that weren't through disputed lines.
 
I just curious about something WarHiker, would DNA clear any of this up?
 
Lucy, my answer is possibly.
 
Last edited:
Why does this person in my tree have a link with Charlemagne?

Countess Matilda "Maud" de Penthievre de Brittany
Your 28th great grandmother
Birth 1092 in Rennes, Ille-et-Vilaine, Bretagne, France
Death 1132 in Bretagne, France
Edit this person
Story View
 
I am related to Queen Elizabeth II 22nd cousin 2X removed Fascinating!

I have been working very hard to put together our family tree and I was excited to first see William the Conqueror, but as I continued I found I am related to Queen Elizabeth II. Very distant 22nd cousin removed 2X but still interesting! I can't wrap my head around 22nd cousin 2x removed. If someone can explain I would appreciate it. Do we even share the same blood this far along?
 
I have read that everyone in the world are at least 14th cousins. As far as being DNA/blood related to a 22nd cousin, probably neither. Think of your maternal grandparents; let us assume your mother inherited 50% of her DNA from each of her parents. At your conception, she passed on to you ONLY those genes that she had inherited from her father. So at that point you actually have none of your grandmother's DNA. So a person can be descended or related to a person and the both of you actually do not have any genes/DNA in common. This is an oversimplified version, but it is entirely possible.
 
There is nothing to think about, if you reread that page, it says exactly what I stated the 1st time. Possible for it to happen that way, but not probable. Even with that point explained, someone who is your 22nd cousin twice removed (and there is for certain no closer common ancestor), is really not a relative at all. To say you are related to the queen and she is your cousin, you are only fooling yourself with that belief. Give me an update next year when you are invited to Buckingham Palace to celebrate her 90th birthday and she introduces you to all as her long lost cousin. I only wish you good luck with that.
 
NotHRH said:
I have read that everyone in the world are at least 14th cousins. As far as being DNA/blood related to a 22nd cousin, probably neither. Think of your maternal grandparents; let us assume your mother inherited 50% of her DNA from each of her parents. At your conception, she passed on to you ONLY those genes that she had inherited from her father. So at that point you actually have none of your grandmother's DNA. So a person can be descended or related to a person and the both of you actually do not have any genes/DNA in common. This is an oversimplified version, but it is entirely possible.
Click to expand...


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

Mitochondrial DNA — University of Leicester

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

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/...ntific-information/evidence-from-dna-analysis
 
Last edited:
a cousin is a cousin regardless of how remote if the relationship can be proven via genealogy. note: dna shows that a relationship exists, but for this, not specifically how
 
Agreed, but the point is that it is not a close relationship as many who have "proof" they are related to QEII for instance. Some who post in this category really believe that they are now royalty because the Queen is their 22nd cousin. I cannot phathom someone actually believing that because it is just silly. Again, everybody on our earth is related to each other. Royalty is nothing more than a concept, there are royalty genes or DNA - mere mortals who, in throughout history, blatantly stole from those they ruled and their wealth increased exponentially. I may be the queen's 15th cousin - but that info and a couple of dollars might buy a cup of coffee from McD*****s.
 
NotHRH said:
Agreed, but the point is that it is not a close relationship as many who have "proof" they are related to QEII for instance. Some who post in this category really believe that they are now royalty because the Queen is their 22nd cousin. I cannot phathom someone actually believing that because it is just silly. Again, everybody on our earth is related to each other. Royalty is nothing more than a concept, there are royalty genes or DNA - mere mortals who, in throughout history, blatantly stole from those they ruled and their wealth increased exponentially. I may be the queen's 15th cousin - but that info and a couple of dollars might buy a cup of coffee from McD*****s.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

Trick to figuring out who is royal or not in the BRF is to look at the titles. Other than Her Majesty, all other members of the royal family hold the HRH styling.
 
Hello there. I would like to help you understand what the cousin terminology really means. Yesterday I decided to attempt to track every Baron of Magna Charta in an attempt to find out if I have lineage past my Gateway Almy ancestor. I think that most would find that my system of describing the close relations is quite more entertaining to ponder than the normal cousin removed system.

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

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

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


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

Take Care,

William Wallace Brower Berkhoven III
 
everyone related to everyone else? only if you consider species history, rather than family history, ie genealogy which i what we are discussing. as such, I reject the claim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Assigned Moderators - Royal Genealogy Forum
Replies
0
Views
1K
Marengo
Marengo
iceflower
General Questions and Information about Danish Titles
Replies
11
Views
2K
blooms_rulers
B
Somebody
Earning a living as a non-full time royal
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Silverpot
Silverpot
An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
King Felipe, Queen Letizia and Family, General News, Part 3
Replies
6
Views
2K
Blog Real
Blog Real
iceflower
  • Sticky
The Royal Family of Brunei: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
Replies
5
Views
2K
Biri
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom