Mailing List:2009-05-01 05, Re: Royal Descent, by Elijah Shalis

From WRG
Jump to: navigation, search

Mailing List Archives > 2009-05-01 05, Re: Royal Descent, by Elijah Shalis

From: Elijah Shalis <elijahshalis -at-> Subject: Re: [WHITNEY] Royal Descent Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 11:57:17 -0400 References: <><><> In-Reply-To: <> Ya assuming that none of the men and women in the past had secret affairs or cheated lol. Elijah On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Robert L. Ward <Robert -at-> wrote: > Merry and all, > > At 11:58 PM 4/30/2009, Merry Whitney wrote: > >Oh, Robert, there you go raining on the royalty parade again. > > I'll cast doubt on ANY alleged connection which cannot be supported > with credible evidence. Many will succumb to the lure of royal > descent without proper critical examination of the case. If and when > evidence of such a connection is found, I'll embrace it as much as anyone. > > >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. > > Indeed, such events may have occurred. We are ultimately reliant on > whatever documents survive, whether accurate or not. The same is > true of more modern genealogical investigations. For example, if a > birth or death certificate gives the names of parents, and the > information is misreported (for whatever reason), and we have no > contradictory evidence, we will get the parentage of the person > wrong. All we can do is rely on the existing evidence, whatever the > biological truth may be. > > The new DNA studies are a way to discover some of the truth without > documents. The fact that the three main Whitney families in America > (descendants of John of MA, Henry of NY & CT, and Samuel of Bermuda) > have different Y-DNA signatures tells us that at least two of them > (and perhaps all three!) are NOT descendants of the prominent landed > gentry Whitney family from Whitney-on-Wye, Herefordshire, England, > and so don't share their ancestry, including the royal parts. > > Regards, > > Robert > > Mr. Robert L. Ward > <a href=""></a> > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > WHITNEY-request -at- with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Copyright © 2010, the Whitney Research Group

Personal tools