Calling Cromwell Descendants...

[NNR]

Hi,

  As someone who has recently been fortunate enough to trace a connection back to the Cromwells of Oliver etc, I was wondering how much further back other such descendants choose to take the line. Do you stop at Oliver's Great Great Grandfather Morgan as Williams, do you go to his parents William at Yevan and Joan Tudor? Or do you go with Joan's purported father, Jasper Tudor? And if so, do you then follow that through to Jasper's supposed parents, Owen Tudor and Catherine of Valois, King Henry's widow (and then her impeccable royal lineage through, seemingly, every European Royal house)

So...where do you see the actual truth ending, and the myths and untruths begin?

[pinefamily]

Two points I would like to make in relation to this question:

1. There is the argument that all research should be documented as much as possible. Each piece of evidence should be checked, and re-checked. Once you get back to certain point however, the documentary trail thins out considerably, to the point where you need to start looking at alternative sources.

2. Where do you draw the line with "purported", or "supposed"? If we believe all of the lineages and histories, then, for example, Edward III really was the son of Edward II (rumours and gossip of the day notwithstanding), and the two princes really were murdered by their uncle, Richard III. And how much faith should we put into documetary evidence? That is why we need to verify every fact with other sources.

[NNR]

I suppose that both points you make are pertinent to the question I'm asking. Obviously we lose almost all documentation pre-1550s (at best) once parish registers are gone, so we're left with (largely) wills alone - and those only for the rich. As you say, we're left with only a tiny handful of sources, and yet...lines such as the Cromwellian one are so well documented, so do we take that documentation and the consensus of history about who is descended from whom, or do we each intend to rewrite it given what documentation we can lay our hands on?

And yes, 'purported' or 'supposed' really does come into play absolutely anywhere on one's tree, doesn't it? We've only got branches spanning back generations on generations, but can we *really* be sure that even our grandparents are the children of both their 'supposed' parents for example? Obviously this problem gets exacerbated the further back one goes, which is why - I think - this is a personal issue for Cromwell descendants, and why I was wondering exactly where it is each individual person sees the cut off point for what can fairly be called either 'definite ancestry', 'probably ancestry', or the rather, erm, woolier stuff that takes us back to King Priam of Troy (and yes, I have seen that line!!)

[jbml]

Speaking personally, and not as a Cromwell descendant (although it is looking increasingly as though I am linked to a family where a rather impressive looking website confidently asserts the ability to trace the line back to the 4th century BC) I work on the basis that whatever anyone anywhere asserts, I am going to try to replicate their research and assess the source material for myself.

Having assessed the source material for myself, if I am persuaded by the evidence I mark it up. If I think the evidence is suggestive, but not determinative, then I mark it up as a "tentative".

I have no problem in following a tentative line as far as it goes, with whatever sources assessed for what they are worth.

If I traced a family line into an Anglo-Saxon or Norse royal line, then I might hesitate to include Woden in my tree (after all ... claiming blue blood is one thing; divinity is quite another  ). However, the fact remains that the royal genealogies are there for all to see, and whilst plainly they become mythical at some point, they are nonetheless likely to be accurate for at least a couple of generations if not more.

Where you put the "tentative" marker up is, I guess, a matter of personal taste. But I certainly have no problem with including the "reputed" bloodlines, as long as it is clearly flagged that they ARE only reputed rather than confident attributions of ancestry; and the nature of the evidence on which they rest is clearly indicated.

At the end of the day, all genealogies are mere work-in-progress, and subject to change in light of further discoveries ...

[Redroger]

  On my mother's side I descend from the Ayres/Cornwell extended family of Bottisham/Lode and other villages North of Cambridge. In many cases the surname Cornwell is interchangeable with Cornell; and I understand that Cornell was used as a  synonym for Cromwell during the late 17th century after the restoration to prevent victimisation of the Cromwell family from the Stuart dynasty.
Is there any evidence know to support this; or is it simply sppeculation?

[Redroger]

"Warts and all" can they be hereditary? If so, then it may be that I am some kind of descendant of Oliver Cromwell! My great aunt had a face full of warts, and though nothing like the same extent as hers, other relatives on my mothers side have some too.