Jump to content
IGNORED

Seewalds 27: Playing not Cleaning


Coconut Flan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 635
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Jeez people, we need a new variation on “hot!” When we post a lot but it isn’t on topic. Since Spurg was 9 months when they announced Henry, I assumed she announced S3. Phieuw. A little more time for the boys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

But adoption isn't REAL in genealogy! The only ones that count are your biological ancestors! :pb_lol:

First off, I have a spooky fact for genealogists who think this way: it only takes one broken link for an entire branch of your tree to collapse. If great-great-great-Grandma Mary had a secret affair in 1860 and conceived your great-great-granddad Bob and nobody ever knew, guess what? That whole side of your tree is 'wrong' and you'll probably never know, and there's nothing you can do about it! And the reality is, at some point back along your family tree, this WILL be the case! :pb_surprised:

Second, my grandpa was adopted, and I feel much more connected to his adoptive family than his biological ones, who are strangers to me. His adoptive family raised him, imparted their values, interests, quirks, language, traditions, etc. on him and I think have had a much larger influence on who he is and who I am than those who contributed his DNA. So while I may not be descended from them biologically, I am absolutely descended from them in every other sense.

I’m so glad you posted this follow up comment. I have cousins on both sides who were adopted. Like you said, we were raised with the same people, eating the same foods, and hearing the same stories. We may not be blood, but I consider my blood ancestors to be their ancestors as well. 

People who insist otherwise just piss me off. We’re all likely related somehow if you go back far enough in human history. 

1 minute ago, Chewing Gum said:

Jeez people, we need a new variation on “hot!” When we post a lot but it isn’t on topic. Since Spurg was 9 months when they announced Henry, I assumed she announced S3. Phieuw. A little more time for the boys. 

I like people having little flares of pure panic and dread though. It keeps things interesting. :pb_lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

 

I like people having little flares of pure panic and dread though. It keeps things interesting. :pb_lol:

I do suggest “Not!!” In bright orange though :my_biggrin:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I leave for a few hours and I’m missing thread drifts on the princes in the Tower and genealogy! My grandmother was very into genealogy and I did a lot of it when I was out of work for a while and online genealogy was relatively new.  I also had the experience of getting the line back to Adam and Eve.  It went from English gentry to medieval aristocracy to the Romans who ruled Britain to Joseph of Arimathea, and then hooked up with the Biblical genealogies. Then I had a major crisis of faith - it’s wrong somewhere, but where? 

On the princes, I was very sure that Henry killed them when I was younger and under the influence of The Daughter of Time.  Now I’m not so sure.  Whatever the truth was, I wonder how many people knew about it at the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

 Then I had a major crisis of faith - it’s wrong somewhere, but where? 

As I told my aunt when her genetic testing came back, revealing that she was 40% Irish despite not having a single Irish ancestor recorded: Until very, very recently, there was no way to prove a particular man was the father of a particular baby. :pb_lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ViolaSebastian said:

As I told my aunt when her genetic testing came back, revealing that she was 40% Irish despite not having a single Irish ancestor recorded: Until very, very recently, there was no way to prove a particular man was the father of a particular baby. :pb_lol:

Indeed, in ancient Celtic ruling classes and their mythology,   "sister's son" would inherit the kingship for that very reason - no way to know who the father was for sure, but the sister was obviously of the bloodline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have done a lot genealogy on my Dad's side of the family after my Mom did her Dad's side of the family. Both families came to America from England/Scotland when the USA was fairly new (Mom's side in the 1600s before the revolution, during early colonization, actually my first ancestor on her side has his own wikipedia page lol. Dad's side came from Scotland in the 1790s) but I have never been able to trace the family back in Europe, at least on Dad's side. Just can't seem to find anyone's father before anyone came to America. I thought it would be easy because the Scottish clan system. What are you guys doing that I'm not?! Also my Dad's grandma was apparently Cajun, so at least I have that to look into still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk of conspiracy theories and Richard killing the princes reminds me of one of my fav celebrities and all the conspiracy theories about him-Richard Simmons!   Anybody listen to the Missing Richard Simmons podcast?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

ETA: Most interesting part of my family tree is the ancestor who fought at Gettysburg and the part that ended up in Australia.

Gettysburg ancestor had three kids and a wife when he left. Two kids disappear off the census while he was gone (meaning they likely died) and his wife died very shortly after he returned home. He married her sick nurse just a few weeks later and had two kids with her. The third kid from marriage one disappears from the census after that. For a long time no one had any idea what happened to him, but a few years ago I found a list of men who went to war with my ancestor and one person listed had the same last name. We aren’t positive, but we think it’s possible that was his son and he just left town at some point.

The Australian relatives... that’s a bit sad. It’s the same side of the family (Irish) and was the 1800’s. It’s likely the son got caught committing a crime of some sort and was shipped there as punishment or that he got into a fight with his father and left forever. The story our side told was he went out for shoes and never came back, which may have been a gentler way of describing the pain his family may have felt. 

As for husband... I’m not giving names, but his Great-Great-Uncle was a well-known mob boss in New York before he was murdered. His Great-Grandma was actually given permission to take her daughter and leave that life because everyone hated her husband (the boss’ brother) so much. His family has newspaper cuttings about the funeral (gaudy, even by Trump standards.)  

So, among others, my kid is descended from at least one mafia boss, a Civil War veteran, and horse thieves (as Dad jokingly refers to his FIL’s family.) 

Your family sounds awesome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

I leave for a few hours and I’m missing thread drifts on the princes in the Tower and genealogy! My grandmother was very into genealogy and I did a lot of it when I was out of work for a while and online genealogy was relatively new.  I also had the experience of getting the line back to Adam and Eve.  It went from English gentry to medieval aristocracy to the Romans who ruled Britain to Joseph of Arimathea, and then hooked up with the Biblical genealogies. Then I had a major crisis of faith - it’s wrong somewhere, but where? 

On the princes, I was very sure that Henry killed them when I was younger and under the influence of The Daughter of Time.  Now I’m not so sure.  Whatever the truth was, I wonder how many people knew about it at the time. 

I would guess not many people knew. Keeping something secret is hard when a lot of people know from the start - someone is likely to spill the beans at some point. My best guess is that whoever made the decision knew, as did the person/people who actually did it. There may have been a messenger in there too, possibly someone who didn’t actually know what they were helping plan. But I don’t think many more people would know than that. 

I find it really interesting that no written communications have been produced yet casting definitive blame on anyone. This was a period of time when written correspondence was routinely opened, copied, and read by spies. So either the person was smart enough to avoid writing their orders down anywhere, the evidence was lost or destroyed (by accident or on purpose), or it’s sitting somewhere waiting to be discovered.

The thing that makes this all so confusing is that no one knows when or how the boys were murdered, if they were indeed murdered at all. All we know is they were last seen publicly entering the Tower in May 1483. Richard didn’t die until August 22, 1485. That’s a huge window of time in which the boys simply disappear from the record books. 

We do know that Dr. John Argentine was treating Edward V while he was in the Tower. He’s one of the last people who reportedly saw the boys alive and Dominic Mancini, an Italian who spent several months of 1483 in England and may not have had a great grasp on the language, wrote down what he observed later that year. Argetine’s account was the basis of the French conclusion that Richard III had the boys killed, but he was also very much against Richard’s reign and may have been biased against him. 

Personally, my money is on Richard having some role in their deaths. I very much doubt he killed them himself, but it’s absolutely possible he could have ordered someone else to do so. There had already been one rebellion in their names in 1483, which just proved how dangerous they were alive. Plus, there’s the fact that Richard never offered the living boys up as proof and he never opened an official investigation - both of which would have been very much in his favor as King.

There’s also the fact that Buckingham’s revolt later that year was done in Henry Tudor’s name... not in the name of Edward V or his brother. It seems likely that Buckingham, who had access to the Tower during that time, either knew or suspected the boys were dead at that point. I doubt he acted on his own, but it’s possible that he and Richard worked together somehow before they had their falling out and Buckingham switched sides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, singsingsing said:

Second, my grandpa was adopted, and I feel much more connected to his adoptive family than his biological ones, who are strangers to me. His adoptive family raised him, imparted their values, interests, quirks, language, traditions, etc. on him and I think have had a much larger influence on who he is and who I am than those who contributed his DNA. So while I may not be descended from them biologically, I am absolutely descended from them in every other sense.

My great-grandfather isn't related to us by blood. My grandmother and her sister were from her mother's first marriage. But I include him our family and not the "first" one because he was their father, my mother's grandfather and my great-grandfather in everyway but blood. He could have raised those girls and loved them anymore then if they had been his. They were his. He raised them, he loved them. Same with his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I could go on forever all he's done for our family, how much he influenced all of us including me. When I started making my family tree as a teen I put him in as father, and his family. I got lectured from some people how he was the "step" and that I'd lying. It wasn't truthful. I wasn't sure how it made a difference and still don't. To me it would be more wrong to keep him off the tree and give the spot to the one who was a horrible husband and father. Who took off and was never seen again.  My great-grandfather is my family. His my great-grandfather. His brothers and sister are my family. His parents are my great-great-grandparents I know them all and have endless stories about all of them. I didn't and won't take him or his family off the family tree. That's where they belong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, JordynDarby5 said:

Your family sounds awesome!

Aw! Thank you! It used to bum me out that we hadn’t found a royal or famous connection. We have some pretty great family stories though and some really great food. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

Personally, my money is on Richard having some role in their deaths. I very much doubt he killed them himself, but it’s absolutely possible he could have ordered someone else to do so. There had already been one rebellion in their names in 1483, which just proved how dangerous they were alive. Plus, there’s the fact that Richard never offered the living boys up as proof and he never opened an official investigation - both of which would have been very much in his favor as King.

There’s also the fact that Buckingham’s revolt later that year was done in Henry Tudor’s name... not in the name of Edward V or his brother. It seems likely that Buckingham, who had access to the Tower during that time, either knew or suspected the boys were dead at that point. I doubt he acted on his own, but it’s possible that he and Richard worked together somehow before they had their falling out and Buckingham switched sides. 

That's where my money is too. I doubt he killed them himself. But the princes were last seen in his custody. If they had died naturally. Why wouldn't he have said so? Grieving over the lost of two young boys, a king and prince who died of an illness? Why not post that they were ill and dying. Not only would it legitimatize the crown Richard stole but would be sympathetic. He also stole his nephew's crown. He also took custody of not only Edward but his brother. The King and Heir, both who then were never seen again. Had Henry Tudor arrived and found the boys alive then yes I do believe he'd have them killed. But I think they were dead by that point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what my aunt has gathered, we were poor and questionable where we came from and nobody bothered to turn over a new leaf on the new continent. Our Native American side is a bit harder to trace records wise due to name changes to avoid the law and remarriages. We can track to the Eastern Band of the Cherokee, like many people in the region who descended from those who refused to leave their lands during the Trail of Tears and either hid/ their white husband was allowed to keep them. 

My most interesting ancestor died of a lung problem, acquired by several bullet wounds when they came to arrest him for being a moonshiner while he was giving the sermon at church. It didn't go quite to plan as he either had a gun in the pulpit or grabbed one from someone and fired back. My grandmother was always so embarrassed by it and my great uncle would cheer her by reminding her that everyone stopped wearing big feathers in their church hats after. 

We're less questionable now, I promise :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@singsingsing double cousins getting married or...?

I also have quite a bit of sibling-pair marriage and mild inbreeding (oh what a term) back in my history. Indiana Quakers in the 1800s were both self-isolating and very good at keeping records :pb_lol:

My dad is the family genealogy guy so I'll ask him to let me take a look at what he has. No famous connections that I know of. Both Union and Confederate soldiers, both slave-owners and (early!) abolitionists, and a couple men who ran off with their mistresses. Lots of farmers. 'Murica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

I have cousins on both sides who were adopted. Like you said, we were raised with the same people, eating the same foods, and hearing the same stories. We may not be blood, but I consider my blood ancestors to be their ancestors as well. 

My closest cousin is one of three who were adopted. When I was born, I was the first female BORN into our family in 70 years. Much was made about that, after four generations of nothing but boys. However.

Some old biddy who knew my grandparents (my dad's parents) heard about my birth, and cornered my grandmother in the grocery store and said she was SO HAPPY my grandmother finally had a REAL grandchild.

I think my grandmother would probably have gone to jail these days, for her response to the woman.

My cousins are my cousins. Blood/DNA or no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. One Kid has said the average TD family tree doesn't fork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long time lurker -coming out of lurker-dom to tell everyone how my family tree is really more of a shrub than a tree(no really!)

So my maternal grandfathers side of the family. His parents got married and they had a bunch of kids - like 9? And on her death bed (somewhat young)- she told her husband to go to Poland (from the US) and get her two kids and bring them to the US. This would have been around the mid 30s I think. (when she left Poland - she left behind a daughter at an orphanage and a son who she "sold" to a family... not entirely sure how accurate that piece of this is but she did lose track of him)
Great Grandpa goes to Poland and meets his step daughter Lucy who has three small children. The govt. says "You can leave Poland with Lucy - but not her children. Unless you marry her." So he marries his step daughter and brings her and the three kids to the US. Lucy & Great Grandpa then have three kids too.

So my Grandfather's step mom is his half sister - and her children are both nieces and nephews and step siblings and in the case of the last kids - niece and nephew and half siblings.

It's all very crazy and I'd love to find the time to really dig into the meat of it. Who was the father of Lucy and her brother? What does it mean "sold" her son? What was his name, what happened to him, did my great-grandfather know? what happened to Lucy's kids father?

Also - re: adoption, my son is adopted - and he's totally going in the family tree. And I have cousins who are adopted that I forget are adopted because they're just my cousins.
And when you consider stories like the one in my family tree? Blood doesn't really matter - chances are we've all got skeletons in the closets anyway. We just know about the ones that are happening in present day.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/26/2017 at 12:54 PM, singsingsing said:

@HarryPotterFan Yes! My sister and I got so many hours of enjoyment from My Immortal back in the day, and it still cracks me up. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that it was written as a parody, and it was brilliant. "STOP IT NOW YOU HORNY SIMPLETONS!" shouted Professor McGoggle. :pb_lol:

"WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING YOU MOTHERFUKERS!" Shouted Professor Dumblydore (HE HAD A HEADAKE OK) :pb_lol:

On 10/26/2017 at 1:09 PM, Carm_88 said:

I was just coming back to say I forgot Roanoke! :o Ooops my bad! Now I want to watch Supernatural! 

I'm so behind on the show!!! 

On 10/26/2017 at 1:22 PM, Lurky said:

ME TOO!   I kind of don't actually want to know the truth, because it's so perfect.  Every few years I re-read it and howl with laughter.

Have you seen the webseries based on My Immortal too?  I really, really love it (ETA I really love the diverse cast too.  This is my favourite Hermione, for sure!)

 

I haven't watched the web series!! I've meant to. I just watched the one you linked to. Why is Draco the only British one? And I appreciate that they cast a black woman as Hermione years before Cursed Child did it.

18 hours ago, ViolaSebastian said:

I just have plain old peasant scoliosis :shakehead: :pb_lol:

Me too!! I'm glad to "meet" so many scoliosis cousins though! Finding out Richard III had scoliosis sort of changed my perception of him. That's a big as curve, he must have been in so much pain. Which I think would help explain his reputation as being a butt face. Chronic pain can really do a number on someone's mood, personality, brain, etc. I'm also personally offended that Shakespeare called him a hunchback. Excuse you, sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loving the thread drift, I have been trying to trace my family tree for a while all I have found out so far was that my great granddad was telling the truth when he told me his uncle played in the first ever Celtic team. I found that out by chance on twitter when a Celtic blog uploaded a picture of the team with the name of my granddad's uncle on the photo. Further research found that he had short career and he drank himself to death. The trouble is have found is my last name is an Irish name with many spelling variations, most immigrants from Ireland were illiterate then so spellings in records were not always correct  and all the first born sons in my family, until my brother were named John, a popular name. I may try again in the summer when I finish uni to see what else I can find and see if Celtic Park have any additional information on my Great Granddad's uncle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because, I feel like everyone needs a decent laugh. If anyone wants to read shenanigan based fanfiction, I totally wrote some for both HP and other things for a very close friend to read during her chemo sessions/down times over the years (she's in remission again!). She shipped odder couples, Bill/Hermione was her fave, but if you want a laugh just pm me as some of them wound up quite popular. I'll give you my username. *Not selling anything, not making any money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I might have mild scoliosis. I took some pictures of my spine a while back and was startled to see a bit of a curve. If I do have it, it's not bad enough to cause any problems I've noticed.

I looked at the Richard III Society site and they have acknowledged Richard's scoliosis now but still seem really adamant about him not having a hunchback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always look a bit askance at family trees, because of my family's.   My granny was one of 13 surviving children, but her mother had a long-term affair, so there are 3 sets of kids - the ones fathered by great-granny's husband, and those from the affair (and it's never quite sure who's who) and then after her husband died, she married the affair. 

And then there are the complicated wider-family issues, such as the person brought up as A's daughter and B's sister, but it turns out B was the mother, father unknown.

@HarryPotterFan No idea why Draco is the only Brit, but I love their Harry Vampire Potter.  But I definitely recommend the whole thing, it's fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone else watched the PBS doc "Resurrecting Richard III?"  They found a young man with a curved spine that was almost identical with the skeleton of Richard III and worked with him to see if he could learn to ride a horse, fight, and wear armor. Turns out he could do all of it and he did not look hunchbacked, especially wearing clothing or the armor. Maybe no one back then except close family or his wife even realized he had a curved spine. Of course, once he was killed in battle and they threw his naked body down in the town square to be stared at for a few days, people would have seen and started spreading the news that his back wasn't normal looking. Guess it could balloon into being a hunchback over time, especially since it was to Henry Tudor's benefit to denigrate him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Coconut Flan locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.