Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2011-11 > 1322451177

From: Wjhonson <>
Subject: Re: Horace Round and Royal myths
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:32:57 -0500 (EST)
References: <><><><>
In-Reply-To: <>

There is always a possibility.
Isn't it a bit defeatist to say that no new records will emerge to address the point?
There are new records emerging constantly. No one can visit every single repository in a county or realize that a family has taken their deeds from Shropshire to Ireland and only now are publishing them for the first time.

You can never say that fifth cousin Mabel, who just died and had inherited her great great great grandmothers family bible which got sold to a junk dealer and has now appeared on ebay and just happens to name the parents of your fourth great grandfather and that they were "from Cardiff".

happens all the time... constantly... daily.

-----Original Message-----
From: taf <>
To: gen-medieval <>
Sent: Sun, Nov 27, 2011 7:21 pm
Subject: Re: Horace Round and Royal myths

On Nov 27, 5:23 pm, Wjhonson <> wrote:
> But again with the example of "James Norman", you are picking AN ancestor and
stating that you can't go further.
> Round wasn't stating that you could pick one. That was the point.
> You can't pick the royal line.
> You have to supply your 16 ggrandparents and ONE of those will have a royal
> Not each of them. He never said each of them.

I am not picking AN ancestor. I am giving an example of what can
happen to truncate a line, and it not only eliminates that one
connection - it eliminates any possibility of connecting in that whole
quadrant. I also gave examples of other ways that a line can fail to
produce a proven royal ancestry. The effect of these potential
problems is to produce a cumulative probability of failure. Yes,
James is just one, but these things happen, and if they happen enough,
you aren't left with ANY possible avenues. Round needs the pedigree
to broaden faster than these problems extinguish the possibilities of
each individual line, and I strongly suspect that in some regions at
some time periods, this expectation would not be met.

You normally have 8 g-grandparents (not 16). My guy had 6 - not 6
known, just six. Two were from a parish without surviving records for
a time-gap too long to be bridged, but that's ok, since there are 4
more, right (and remember that Round said you just had to have 4
British ones, so all the better). But 2 were 'from Essex' with names
too common to enable them to be distinguished. Now I am down to 2.
But that's alright because Round never said each of them, right?
James, well we talked about James. That leaves James' wife, and nobody
of her name can be found anywhere in the area. That leaves zero. You
see, I AM talking about any of them, not each of them. Is this bad
luck? yes, but I don't think, for this region and time, that it is
incredibly bad luck, and I suspect you will find people in other areas
(London, for example) with similar difficulties, and anyhow Round was
betting against bad luck when he make this type of absolute
declaration. Could Round, if he was looking at this 100 years ago,
find a connection to an earlier generation? possibly, but given the
'fail' rate, the two new-found g-g-grandparents seem just as likely to
be untraceable.


To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message

This thread: