GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-08 > 1185995710


From: taf <>
Subject: Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:15:10 -0700
References: <mailman.44.1185962129.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.44.1185962129.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>


On Aug 1, 2:55 am, John Plant <> wrote:
> A partly fulfilled aim of this Y-DNA project has been to reach a better
> understanding of Plant-like names in general. A remaining aim of the
> Plantagenet project is to establish a Y-DNA signature for the
> late-medieval kings of England.

> Right from the outset, six out of seven of the miscellaneous Plants who
> were tested matched and the trend continued to eleven out of twenty,
> indicating that Plant was a single-ancestor, rather than a multi-origin,
> surname;

What do the other 9 out of 20 look like? Is there similarity among
them, such as might represent a second group, or are they random?
Likewise, what are their claimed pedigrees? Is there a disconnect
between the claimed pedigrees and the DNA results, or is this being
done without an underlying genealogical context?


> Throughout this time, I have also been attempting to establish a Y-DNA
> signature for the Plantagenets. There have been published claims that
> the names Somerset, Cornwell, Warren and, more contentiously in the
> nineteenth century, Plant/Plantt, all descend down male-to-male lines
> from the Plantagenet family.

This is a misrepresentation. It is not that the surnames Cornwell
(sic) or Warren are representative of Plantagenet descent, but that
some known Plantagenet descendants (might) have the surnames (actually
Cornwall in the first case). This is an entirely different prospect.
As a general rule, surnames are not a good indicator of specific
descent. As to Plant, well, we all know what 19th century speculation
is worth. Unless you have a specific descent in mind, you are
throwing darts with a blindfold.


> However, Cornwell and Warren appear to be
> multi-origin surnames and there is no convincing basis for taking any
> particular result as being the inherited Plantagenet Y-DNA signature.

There is a convincing basis for taking one specific type, and it is
the sine qua non of the approach - it must be pedigree based. Even
were Cornwell to be a single-origin family, you would have to know the
descent, generation by generation, for the connection to be
meaningful. Otherwise, you are just connecting one family of unknown
origin to another family of unknown origin. (In this case, you would
certainly want more than one descent to identify the type.)

> It
> is probably the Somerset family, including such illustrious members as
> the Duke of Beaufort and Lord Raglan, who hold the best claim to being
> intact male-line descendants of the Plantagenets; but, there is no Y-DNA
> result to report for them so far.

Given the illegitimate connections as well as the number of
generations, you would certainly want multiple options - you want to
compare the Somerset type with a Warenne or Cornwall for anyone to
really trust it.

> The study already illustrates how Y-DNA results for a very ordinary
> surname, such as Plant, can lead on to the reappraisal of matters of
> some historical significance.

Umm. historical significance??

> Following on from my Nomina 28 paper I am
> publishing a further paper in Volume 30 of Nomina: in this, I conclude
> that it seems that Plantagenet had "a `hairy broom shoot' implication of
> virility, strong limbs, and a robust constitution, with bawdy
> connotations of virility that evidently delayed the name's acceptance
> until late in this dynasty's reign" [John S Plant (2007) `The tardy
> adoption of the Plantagenet surname', Nomina, to appear in Vol 30, pp
> 57-84].

Of course, the alternative interpretation is that it was never a
surname, just the nickname of a single member. Then someone wanting
to emphasize a genealogical connection for political purposes adopted
his ancestor's nickname as a surname.

Your model implies that the surname was there, present but suppressed,
though the reigns of 11 monarchs (at a time, by the way, that no
monarchs used surnames), monarchs with dramatic differences in
character, all of whom were too embarrassed to be associated with
"bawdy connotations of virility". Then one member who wanted to show
himself a more appropriate successor than the guy on the throne - he
goes out of his way to adopt a name with "bawdy connotations of
virility". I am having problems with the motivations.

taf

This thread: