Mailing List:2009-04-30 03, Re: Royal Descent, by Merry J. Whitney

From WRG
Jump to: navigation, search

Mailing List Archives > 2009-04-30 03, Re: Royal Descent, by Merry J. Whitney

From: Merry Whitney <merryjwhitney -at- sbcglobal.net> Subject: Re: [WHITNEY] Royal Descent Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:58:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0KIX002A1UTZC5B7@vms173007.mailsrvcs.net> Oh, Robert, there you go raining on the royalty parade again.   I'd like to add an addendum to your observation about confusion stemming from some 19th century miscreant's mischief, and I had discussed this briefly with Allan Green a few years ago. I have no idea whether this factor affected any of the Whitney records or genealogies, but it is something to be aware of:   In Catholic countries, including England at least until the reign of Henry VIII, one of the few ways to sever marital ties, including in cases where a husband was presumed dead in battle but the demise was not witnessed or recorded, was through a Papal or Church annulment. Consanguinity was one of the most sure-fire grounds to assure a Church annulment would be granted, and the least difficult to establish with a bit of creative genealogical revisionism (this was the avenue by which Eleanor of Aquitaine managed to shed a French king to be free to marry a then-future English king, Henry II).   Obviously, this could be utilized only by people of privilege and means and, probably, highly-placed connections (OK, so I'm steeped in Chicago-style machinations), but there were genealogical specialists adept at finding familial links between spouses, even if it required altering entries on church and estate or probate records to establish those links.   Merry Whitney Lombard, IL      --- On Thu, 4/30/09, Robert L. Ward <Robert -at- rlward.com> wrote: From: Robert L. Ward <Robert -at- rlward.com> Subject: Re: [WHITNEY] Royal Descent To: whitney -at- rootsweb.com, "Elijah Shalis" <elijahshalis -at- gmail.com> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 7:03 PM Mr. Shalis and all, At 08:49 PM 4/22/2009, Elijah Shalis wrote: >My interest has been perked as to the Whitney Descent and have been hunting >down the books on the genealogy of the Whitney's. My descent is through >Miles Riggs whom married Elizabeth Whitney. I have several other lines of >descent that are known proved royal lineages. I found the articles on the >Whitney Royal Descent fraud very weak academically speaking. Thank you for your opinion. >In academics >not only do we have to use sources to prove something but also to disprove >it. When the authors seeking to disprove the royal lineage state that they >have no evidence the lineage is fake but, that the evidence for a lineage is >lacking, then they have a really weak-laughable argument. I certainly would >never turn in a academic paper to a professor with that in it cause I would >like to pass my classes really I would. Perhaps this may be true in your classes. In mathematics, if you can't prove some statement, nor can you disprove it, it can't be accepted. Such statements are called conjectures. Many conjectures have been unresolved for long periods of time before a proof or disproof is finally found. Even more conjectures are still unresolved and probably will remain so for a long time into the future. In genealogy, anything you cannot prove is mere speculation. You might as well speculate that Henry-1 Whitney was an illegitimate son of King James I of England. There is no evidence to support that allegation, either, so it is in the same position as the alleged Hertfordshire origins of Henry published in 1875. Furthermore, it gives Henry even more royal ancestors! In this case, what has been proved is that the unscrupulous genealogist hired to investigate the matter created transcripts of about a dozen alleged documents, none of which can now be found, to support the alleged lineage. There is no evidence that any of these alleged documents ever existed except in her own fertile imagination. There is actually internal evidence that at least one was bogus. While Henry-1 Whitney may have had a line of descent from royalty, we currently have no idea what the names or residence of even his parents were, much less his more distant ancestors, so to claim that would be unsupportable. >In my genealogy study I have sought out original copies for my research in >my birth family and I have found many cases of indexes listing wills >and official papers that no longer exist themselves. It would not surprise >me at all if they were lost, went missing, or were destroyed. Royal and >Noble lineages deal with the ownership of land and land was money worth >spilt blood back then. Obviously if the last heirs left the United Kingdom >others and other family's would stand to profit from destruction of papers >and documents. At least you were looking at contemporarily generated lists or indexes. Similar indexes in England fail to show the existence of any of the alleged documents. How could a genealogist in the 1870s extract information from documents which had been destroyed by alleged heirs or others centuries earlier? Furthermore, you mention heirs to land. Even if the parentage of Henry-1 Whitney as alleged were correct, he would not have been heir to any land, since his alleged parents were not of the upper class of landed gentry. Instead, persons of their social status were either tradesmen or tenant farmers or the like. Your arguments are seriously flawed. Nevertheless, research in original documents held by various archives, libraries, and other repositories in England and Wales is currently being conducted by a few expert members of the Whitney Research Group. The hope is that some documentary proof of the origins of Henry-1 Whitney and other Whitney immigrants will be found. So far, all we have are theories, which, however plausible, cannot be accepted as fact. It may well be, as you mention, that such records were lost or destroyed, and such an effort will fail, but we won't know that until all avenues of research have been followed. >I will go back and check it out and copy all of the inserts Miss. ______ >added in the copy and post them. You cannot send attachments to this e-mail list. They are removed by the program that remails your messages addressed to the list. You'll have to find another way to transmit photographs. Regards, Robert Mr. Robert L. Ward <a href="http://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index.php/User:Rlward">http://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index.php/User:Rlward</a> ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WHITNEY-request -at- rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message


Copyright © 2010, the Whitney Research Group

Personal tools