Geneology - What's yours?

[gilmore]

When I go back through my family history, I can trace some of my Geneology back to Robert The Bruce. But I was told this is a common thing, am I correct?

It's not unusual to have well-known ancestors. In fact, mathematically it is quite likely, especially if your ancestors came from the British Isles, or Scotland, which had a fairly closed gene pool.

They are, or were in former times, many who enjoy being descended from the famous and colorful, and don't let the facts get in their way. A few decades ago genealogical research was much more amateurish and error-ridden than it is today. So it may have been that some eager relative skipped over a few things, made a few associations that weren't warranted and self-published it.

On the other hand, we are all descended from various monarchs, usually several. It's just that most haven't taken the time to do the research. Virtually everyone of British (or other European) descent descends from gentry, from landowners. Trace the gentry and you will find aristocratic ancestors. Trace them and you will find royalty.

We have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, etc. If you calculate the numbers in preceding generations, you come up with billions who lived at the time of Robert the Bruce, William the Conqueror, the Magna Carta Sureties, etc. These numbers represent more people who were living on the earth at that time, many more than who were living in the British Isles, in fact, many more humans than had ever lived up to that time. Some did not have children, and some were rather close cousin marriages, but there comes a point where we descend from more people who were living at a particular time than not.

The problem is that it is was (and is) only the rich who are easiest to trace. They left records that are used in genealogical research, such as deeds, wills, marriage records, etc. These were intended to document the transfer of wealth. Poor people left none, having no or little wealth.

E.g., virtually every person of European descent is descended from Charlemagne. However, as the say, we also descend from his stable boy. It's easier to establish the former than the latter.

I descend from several kings, queens, emperors and saints. I am not particularly proud of it, it is an accident of birth, though I am a bit satisfied with the genealogical work that my family has done over the years.

We can look at it another way. Any person who lived several hundred years ago most likely has descendants living today who number in the thousands and millions. Any given person today is likely to be one of them. Edward III of England is sometimes called the father of the British middle classes, since so many can trace their ancestry to him. I am a descendant of Pocahontas, who lived only 400 years ago, but so are approximately 3 million others now living. No big deal. She and her immediate descendants happened to have lived and thrived in an area obsessed with family and genealogy, Viriginia, where it is said that children at taught at an early age about the Byrds and the Lees.

The reward is being able to have a well-documented line, to me, wherever it leads. In fact, when I run across a cache of genealogical information assembled a few decades ago that proudly trumpets famous ancestry and give short shrift to most others listed in it, it's a red flag that often means each and every link in the purported chain is going to have to be investigated and double checked, an indication that that person's work may not be as reliable as one would like.