GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268604597


From: "Tom Gull" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] English genealogy
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:09:57 -0400
References: <13d1a.4610bb6f.38ce8c73@aol.com><35bbfc2c1003141321t1a7153a0o4081df2e8fc15731@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <35bbfc2c1003141321t1a7153a0o4081df2e8fc15731@mail.gmail.com>


You're not going to prove or disprove less recent British royal ancestry
through Y-DNA or mtDNA testing, so that's kind of a moot point in context.
However, leaving that behind, it is an example of how people develop
hypotheses they don't want overturned. We've seen that demonstrated very
clearly in some of the hypotheses related to tying cultures or "tribes" back
to specific haplogroups - a huge amount of wishful thinking based on not too
many facts.

As a side note, there ARE many people in the U.S. who descend from British
royalty - quite probably in the tens of millions. All they have to do is get
back to one of the 100+ gateway ancestors where solid paper trails have been
developed by some very noted researchers. Since many of these ancestors
arrived in America during the Great Migration and there are maybe
100,000,000 Great Migration descendants per noted genealogists like Gary
Boyd Roberts, it's not unreasonable for an American with firm roots back to
that era to have a fairly good chance at the royal ancestry as well. The
concept that having royal ancestry is rare is very questionable - it's not
particularly rare based on what I've read.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Janet Crawford" <>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 4:21 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] English genealogy

> Take it one step further. There are MANY people in the US who
> gloriously extol their "royal" British ancestry who might get rather
> upset to discover they are not "royal" at all, or have someone else
> discover that fact. Sure would stop a lot of undue bragging, however.
>
> Janet
>



This thread: