Conquer Club

jnd94 wrote:

vtmarik wrote:Somewhere, deep in the bowels of my family tree, I am related to Wyatt Earp.

Let's see, I have a great(x2, maybe x3) grandfather who was a Cherokee on the Trail of Tears.

My Uncle works at Kennedy Space Center.

My mom once met Jimi Hendrix at a concert.

That's all that springs to mind.

ah shes SOOOOOOO lucky!

Yeah, she was sitting on a blanket, Jimi walked past her, said "Hey, baby," and walked away.

my brother's god father's uncle was James Braddock (the protagonist from Cinderella Man, which was based on the story of his life)

Vlad the Impaler...

Lord William Cromwell (on both sides, although much more direct matrilineally - uncle's middle name was Crowell)

And, to balance it out with a non-genocidal maniac- who-we-are-inexplicably-fond-of, Ben Franklin, by marriage.

Not aimed at anyone in particular but how can anyone possibly trace their roots reliably beyond the 18th century? I understand if you are from an aristocratic family more extensive that usual lineage records were kept, but for the common person family history becomes virtually impossible beyond the industrial revolution (in my experience).
Or do some people (pointing no fingers) think that just because they have the same name as someone they are related?
We have a million American tourists coming here (Scotland) saying – "I’m related to William Wallace", but if you question them a bit further you find out that their great granddad married a girl from Scotland called Wallace. Hardly conclusive proof! The tourist shops make a fortune here off these gullible fools.

flashleg8 wrote:The tourist shops make a fortune here off these gullible fools.

Shush! Don't give the game away like that! Jeez! Next you'll be telling everybody that most of Britain's "castles" aren't any older than 19th century. Which they aren't.

flashleg8 wrote:Not aimed at anyone in particular but how can anyone possibly trace their roots reliably beyond the 18th century? I understand if you are from an aristocratic family more extensive that usual lineage records were kept, but for the common person family history becomes virtually impossible beyond the industrial revolution (in my experience).
Or do some people (pointing no fingers) think that just because they have the same name as someone they are related?
We have a million American tourists coming here (Scotland) saying – "I’m related to William Wallace", but if you question them a bit further you find out that their great granddad married a girl from Scotland called Wallace. Hardly conclusive proof! The tourist shops make a fortune here off these gullible fools.

Well, you may be right about Europe, but in East Asia (korea), every family basically keeps an extensive geneology that records every single generation, so it really depends where you are from

d.gishman wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:Not aimed at anyone in particular but how can anyone possibly trace their roots reliably beyond the 18th century? I understand if you are from an aristocratic family more extensive that usual lineage records were kept, but for the common person family history becomes virtually impossible beyond the industrial revolution (in my experience).
Or do some people (pointing no fingers) think that just because they have the same name as someone they are related?
We have a million American tourists coming here (Scotland) saying – "I’m related to William Wallace", but if you question them a bit further you find out that their great granddad married a girl from Scotland called Wallace. Hardly conclusive proof! The tourist shops make a fortune here off these gullible fools.

Well, you may be right about Europe, but in East Asia (korea), every family basically keeps an extensive geneology that records every single generation, so it really depends where you are from

Very true. You're right to pick me up on that fact. I was indeed talking about European and their colonial cousins. Mainly because most of the implausible claims were coming from those sources. I do apologise for being too Eurocentric.