Am I really related to William the Conqueror??

[Greensleeves]

Reading through this thread, I went to Ancestry to find an example of a copy-and-paste tree which linked into my own and - surprise, surprise - the first one I tried was just the sort of thing I was looking for. 

Back in the 1500s it shows Thomas  married to 'Anne' and during their marriage they had 12 children,  the first four a year  or so apart, then longer gaps,  and then after a space of 20 years, the poor woman produced another four whilst in her 70s......  And if that wasn't enough, there was then 'Unknown spouse' which then listed another ten children, whose dates of birth interleaved or were close to the dates of birth of the children of 'Ann'.  Dearie me, don't people ever actually look at what they are copying and pasting?  This kind of nonsense makes me cross.  I don't mind them having a rubbish tree, but I do get fed up with that kind of rubbish coming us as a 'hint' on my tree.

[jbml]

This is, I think, one of the reasons why I have moved away from the concept of a "tree" more or less entirely. By writing up the narrative of the life of each of my ancestors which is implied by the records I have found, I will (hopefully) notice any absurdities and revise my thinking as necessary.

There is a very professional looking "family" site for one of my close family names (my mother's maiden name, as it happens) which is awash with absurdities. They do have the good grace to say that they still have "a lot of work to do" on my particular branch ... but they don't seem remotely interested in my offer of help to put them right.

So they have a mid-19th century Huntingdonshire ag lab having children in Huntingdonshire, Manchester, Yorkshire, Sussex, London, and back to Huntingdonshire again ...

Errrrrr ... I think not!

[ThrelfallYorky]

jmbl and greensleeves, I'm totally with you! When idly perusing just two trees, linked to different lines of my ancestry, I've seen:
child two years younger than his father
Same spouse, with same dates, attached to three generations(!) of the same male first name and according to the tree, producing over 20 progeny, many names and dates in more than one paternal generation(And if that isn't illegal, it ought to be!)
Long list of children born, less than a year between three of them, even overlapping with several of the same first name apparently surviving to further the next generations, the first brood ranging over 56 years of childbearing ( no wonder Mum seems to have vanished away to die unknown)
Individuals within said families born all over the British Isles, and elsewhere (  no, no seafarers on that line )
Same with census "evidence" - swapping age, spouse (and her age), job, location, children's names, sequence and ages! -And parents, of course, too!
Oh, and marrying MY ancestors off to the wrong family completely, banishing them abroad and foisting whole families of offspring onto them

[Top-of-the-hill]

   My mother's response to "my family came over with the Conqueror" was "Oh, we were here before that!"
   We seem to be descended entirely from Saxon (or Jutish) peasants.

[bob1066]

My cousin spoke to somebody who spoke to somebody who said in all seriousness that we are descendants of Robin Hood.

Now I think it's established that Robin Hood did actually exist - that is, there was a person of that name or similar who fitted the description of the legendary outlaw - but how would one go about verifying such a supposition? "Robin" is such a common name, and "Hood" probably not so rare either, that I dare say any person of English ancestry is quite likely to have at least one Robin Hood in their family tree. The outlaw Robin Hood was... ummm... an outlaw, so probably would not have been all that diligent in making sure any marriages, births etc were properly recorded and registered. Indeed, I never heard any mention of him ever having had children.

-----------------------------------------------

Answering the OP: probably not. Just because your grandfather's house had a door with "WC" on it, does not mean it once belonged to William the Conqueror.

[ThrelfallYorky]

Ahhh! but the one that claimed such ancestry has a bow and arrow that must have belonged to Robin Hood..... that proves it!

[Lookin2]

Youngtug  I see an Arden in your list of names.  I am pretty sure when seeing another email ages ago that only about five names have written proof   of time and inheritance as they were landowners.  I am petty sure Arden was one of those names. I cannot remember but it may have been info re 1066 Lookin2

[youngtug]

Not quite back to 1066,,,yet.

[bob1066]

Ahhh! but the one that claimed such ancestry has a bow and arrow that must have belonged to Robin Hood..... that proves it!

Exactly. It carries his initials.