*ATTENTION* Is this maybe the reason that I cannot complete my Winton line of my family tree?
The Setons were granted the lands of Winton c.1152 by Scotland's King David I, which grant was re-confirmed in a charter to them, to Philip de Seton, from William the Lion in 1169. Philip de Seton bestowed Winton on his 2nd son who thus became de Winton and who's descent Alan de Winton later married the heiress Margaret Seton. Alan's eldest son, William adopted his mothers surname and continued the line of the Seton's and became the 1st Lord Seton.
Thanks, Robert. The Biblical tree suffers from too many duplicates being added by well-intentioned people, so it never quite stabilizes the way it could. If you have concerns about specific profiles and potential duplicates, it's best to start a new discussion under the Biblical Tree project:
With a dedicated discussion in the project, it's much more likely that the people who focus on that area will see your question and be able to handle it.
Which project do you mean when you say Eurocentric? There are 249 projects linked in this discussion.
This discussion started in the Mega Merge project, which is a project for profiles that have 100+ managers. Those profiles will be necessarily Eurocentric as long as the shared ancestry of the majority of Geni users is European.
Over time, we can expect that to shift, but it will take (1) many new users from outside Euro-America, and (2) a high concentration of shared ancestry among them.
Some experts have estimated that Americans with colonial ancestry are the largest, most closely related group of people on earth. Likely, no more distant than 13th cousins from one another. So it will be hard to find another group that generates this managers for so many shared ancestors.
I apologize if you feel that people are ignoring your message. It's hard to know how to respond.
The Mega Merge project is for Geni profiles that have 100+ managers. The first message in this thread was Henn pointing out profiles that qualify for the project but haven't yet been added.
As far as I know, all the profiles suggested by Henn have now been added.
The discussion has wandered off topic, as discussions often do ;)
Are we all related to these people? The short answer is: probably. The fact that they have 100+ managers means that quite a few people on Geni are descended from or related to them.
I myself manage 73 profiles and have found alot of interesting information. I have know that I have two bloodlines which is English and German but have also found that I have six more. By checking some of the names listed on here I have found more ancestor links as well as interesting history and events.
Quite a few people get all uptight over genealogy. Take what you want or need from the offerings on Geni. Don't let the "academic" attitude of some bother you. It is interesting to look at the whole bit in the light of the flow of peoples out of Africa, how we changed physically, how we spread over, time, developed languages, cultures, and religions. Some of our ancestors may have been "big", but there would have been no "big" people without "little" people. Genetic science tells us there is only one race, the human race. We have a history, and to many of us our history is interesting. But who or what my ancestors were hasn't had a significant impact on me, personally, other than some immigrated to the U.S.A. and I inherited opportunity from that. I have generations and generations of farmers as well as kings and queens and saints in my background. But what is that worth, really? What it is worth to me is historical perspective on what sweat, tears, work, avarice, lust for power, and sometimes madness can produce. We are mankind and we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously but should respect ourselves. I supposedly have over 40,000 ancestors according to Geni...but so what? Just take what you want from the information available and ENJOY it.
Kentucky Lynn, you can trace back ,way back by using records. They will record weather someone was legitimate or not and who the parents were, in most case. Of course there are some exceptions to the rule. A fact we have been doing this, all are aware of. DNA is great and if you can afford it it would be good to do. Granted some of the connections on here a hard to shallow and I take with a grain of salt. Some of ti it is a Ya Right, response from me. But what I have found myself had been by following the records trail. If i find info via someone else, I see if they have references and then i double maybe even triple check it out.It's not all B.S. as you stated. Some of it may be but most of it is not.
Records will show you if a child is illegitimate, generally due to "women on the side"... records will not show you when paternity is not accurate. Studies have shown around 4% of births result from fathers not in the relationship, and that historically this rate could vary from 4-20% depending on time period, culture etc. So all of us most likely have fathers in our line who are not documented, and will never be known. I think THAT was Kentucky's point.
Roger Renfro the number of "wrong father" is hotly debated. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/4586120/Scientists-... for a 2009 study; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-paternity gives more references.
Never the less records are the only we can really go without the DNA and if the fathers or mothers are related then it's even hard that way. You have heard of husbands fooling around with sister in laws and even mother i n laws and wives doing the same with brother in laws and father in laws. Cousins with cousins and even parents with children and all that gets hiden. They might just the same DNA. Give it rest people!
If you read me correctly tectonically agree.But we can only go by records. Short DNA Henry 2 leftover bones. The ones they still have since his grave was opened and his bone thrown all over the place. I doubt if at this point in time you can get DNA from that. And all those people drawn and quarters and tortures and arms , legs , organs, head personel parts chopped off and roasted and stuffed down throats ,strewn all over the kingdom. It was a bad , nasty cruel time and it ain't no better these days in some parts of the world. You ain't gonna get DNA. So records are all you can go by and often they are recorded wrong. It all depends on who was recording them.
Believe one of the more 'horrific' things going on back from then and for the next 500-600 years was the fact that the British Islands were a dual language area, where French was spoken by the aristocracy (Bretagne descendentants of the vikings) and Anglo Saxon (A dialect with West German language origins). The merger of the 2 seems to have begun with the issue of the King james Bible in 1617.
Well for awhile there during one of the King Henry's reins , they didn't allow English to be spoken , as they were from Frances. Remember William the Conq. was French and Henrry the 1st was his son and Henry the 2nd was his great grand Son.They were all living half the time in France. but that was after the period you just mentioned.
King James Bible still one most everyone uses nowadays , if you are Protestant.That's the one everyone in my family has.
Judy, They seem to have got the DNA for Richard III. I will enjoy seeing on his master profile "buried in a car-park in Leicester". But you are right - we wouldn't have enjoyed living then; whole villages ran away when Henry II instituted the circuit courts, because all of them were accused of murder.
Sten, I think you are a couple of hundred years out (I don't see bilingualism as a horror, if everyone tries to be bilingual). One can sense a very real fear among the English in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries that their language, culture, and history were going to be erased. The pendulum swung with the loss of Normandy to the French in 1204. But it took another nearly 200 years before Richard II was the first post-1066 King of England to take his coronation oath in English rather than French. By that time you had Chaucer writing in English and being accepted as an equal of French poets; and Wycliffe clandestinely circulating his translation of the Bible in English (what a heresy!).
It took another 200 years or so for the courts to put down their records in English rather than an illiterate bastardised French. And (although this is a different story) the courts in Jersey still use medieval French - probably as a barrier to keep out English or modern French lawyers rather than from any practical or traditional reason.
Woodman you are a bit of a pompous person aren't you.That's not what I wanted to say but I am being polite.I am assuming all of Richard was buried in one place.Henry I think it was the 2nd had his remains not once but twice thrown all over the city he was buried in and they only now have a femea. , not sure if that spelled correctly, but i am sure you are getting the jest of it, maybe that would help with DNA.Maybe not. I am sure you get the drift of what i was saying.
Erica, in general the "de" in English surnames disappears pretty dramatically in the reign of Edward III. The Statute of Pleading in 1362 first required English courts to use the English language. Parliament was opened in English for the first time in 1363.
There's no bright line. Many names that once used "de" dropped it long before Edward III. ("Dropped it" meaning that surviving records don't have it -- we don't actually know whether that means it wasn't still used.) And, there are still examples of "de" being used after Edward III.
If I see a English profile that uses a "de" after 1400, I really expect to see it documented from primary sources. Otherwise it's likely to be someone's misunderstanding.
So, we are worried about legitimacy? About the right father? About DNA testing?
I believe it was Lord Acton who said, the husband is the father of a child born to a married woman.
Now how about another matter, adoption? I have an ancestor listed as adopted, and by that adoption he was the legitimate heir to the royal house. Which still leave him a place in the line, but his father is not his biological father. How does that fit in. At this point DNA becomes irrelevant. His father on the list made him what he became, gave him his history and culture and morals and principles, regardless of the biological relationship between them.
This is not a trivial matter, esp today when adoption is more and more common. How do we explain to our children who their family is if we limit it to genetic heritage.
I adopted two daughters. They are on my family tree, and they are going to stay there. These people in ancient history are not their genetic ancestors, but they are their history.
De is french isn't it and those people orginally with de in front of their nanes also la line la Zouche, were all french orginally. Came with William the Conq. Once they were no longer connected with france and were consider English they de and la seem to disappear. So when writing profile the de and la only should be applied in the right instincts and removed at time they stopped using them but note in about, plus you can see them as you back track.Hey that's my opinion and I"m stickin" too it! Judy
You are very right, Judy.
We also need to remember two other things about "de". It's not capitalized in medieval England. The capitalization starts later when some Victorian families starting adding it back by Royal License.
And, Anglo-French was different from the French we know. Where modern French uses a contraction before a vowel, Anglo-French did not. So, for example, we see "de Acton" and not "d'Acton".