Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
The White Knight

European Union - In Or Out?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, iris123 said:

I was quite enjoying them taking you apart piece by piece:rofl: Not that it is difficult

Neither them cultists or you can take down someone with lineage going back further than my great , great , great ( keep repeating a dozen more times) great grandfather Sir Francis Drake. Different gravy . :drink:

Share this post


Link to post

bravo by George a True Brit What ho!! Go out and squash those funny foreigners...they don't speak English y'know...

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Icicle said:

bravo by George a True Brit What ho!! Go out and squash those funny foreigners...they don't speak English y'know...

You been on the Babycham again ? What on earth are you raving on about ?

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Phlipphlopp said:

Neither them cultists or you can take down someone with lineage going back further than my great , great , great ( keep repeating a dozen more times) great grandfather Sir Francis Drake. Different gravy . :drink:

Well there must have been a virgin birth somewhere along the line as Francis Drake reportedly never had any kids.:D

But even if he did have some illegitimate kids, there would be at least 18 generations between now and someone living 450 years ago. Even if you very conservatively assume there's 3 offspring from each generation (given the population of England and Wales was only around 5 million in 1570), that would make 387 million descendants which means pretty much everyone in the UK is likely related in some way... :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

Well there must have been a virgin birth somewhere along the line as Francis Drake reportedly never had any kids.:D

But even if he did have some illegitimate kids, there would be at least 18 generations between now and someone living 450 years ago. Even if you very conservatively assume there's 3 offspring from each generation (given the population of England and Wales was only around 5 million in 1570), that would make 387 million descendants which means pretty much everyone in the UK is likely related in some way... :rolleyes:

Direct lineage Air miles. Ever heard of a family tree ? A great Aunt had ours done in the late 60's. Keep feeling the burn. Its all written down .

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Phlipphlopp said:

Direct lineage Air miles. Ever heard of a family tree ? A great Aunt had ours done in the late 60's. Keep feeling the burn. Its all written down .

You're clearly missing the obvious part relating to a lack of issue 4WD.

I suppose Drake did like burning things during his piracy career though. 

Edited by Humphrey Appleby

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Humphrey Appleby said:

You're clearly missing the obvious part relating to a lack of issue 4WD.

If you think wiki is the answer you need help. No one seems to know how many kids Boris has , so lets not think stories from the 16th century have any validation :wink: Its all on a very large scroll. I did have it in my possession for a week , but phone cameras were not a thing back then.

Share this post


Link to post

So What?? You have a long lineage to justify your xenophobia (hence my what ho mocking of being a "true brit")

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Icicle said:

So What?? You have a long lineage to justify your xenophobia (hence my what ho mocking of being a "true brit")

What xenophobia ? You clearly are not very well. If you think leaving a political 'union'  is xenophobic you really need help.If you can find any xenophobia from me on here  , feel free to quote it. If you cant , keep quiet and keep you're ignorance to yourself.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Phlipphlopp said:

Neither them cultists or you can take down someone with lineage going back further than my great , great , great ( keep repeating a dozen more times) great grandfather Sir Francis Drake. Different gravy . :drink:

More like Charlie Drake  :D

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Phlipphlopp said:

No one seems to know how many kids Boris has , so lets not think stories from the 16th century have any validation :wink: Its all on a very large scroll. I did have it in my possession for a week , but phone cameras were not a thing back then.

It's not a question of whether it's on a scroll or not, nor what's on Wikipedia. Anyone in any era can make something up based on unverifiable hearsay, muddled memories, mistaken identity or other reasons to claim descendancy, but unless it's backed up with birth, marriage and/or death records then it remains just that. And parish records are unfortunately far from complete or reliable before the 17th century. 

It's not impossible that Drake might have had illegitimate offspring, but it seems claiming descent from Francis Drake is a common theme... http://www.indrakeswake.co.uk/Society/descendants.htm

Edited by Humphrey Appleby
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

It's not a question of whether it's on a scroll or not, nor what's on Wikipedia. Anyone in any era can make something up based on unverifiable hearsay, muddled memories, mistaken identity or other reasons to claim descendancy, but unless it's backed up with birth, marriage and/or death records then it remains just that. And parish records are unfortunately far from complete or reliable before the 17th century. 

It's not impossible that Drake might have had illegitimate offspring, but it seems claiming descent from Francis Drake is a common theme... http://www.indrakeswake.co.uk/Society/descendants.htm

 

Parish Records go back to 1539.

What’s not reliable is illegitimacy and wrongly recorded fathers.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, DC2 said:

Parish Records go back to 1539.

They started then, but were not collated in each bishopric until the end of that century. So you need to rely on the parish church having not lost the records they held, or them being otherwise destroyed. The pertinent point of course is that Drake lived precisely in that period of record keeping.

And of course there weren't standardised spellings for names in those days either.  

Edited by Humphrey Appleby

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

They started then, but were not collated in each bishopric until the end of that century. So you need to rely on the parish church having not lost the records they held, or them being otherwise destroyed. The pertinent point of course is that Drake lived precisely in that period of record keeping.

And of course there weren't standardised spellings for names in those days either.  

No reason why Ploppys family tree should be wrong. Having gone back to about the 14th Century through the male line of my family I would say you can go back to about 1700 with certainty, about 1500 with a high degree of confidence, then back to about 1300 on the basis of “right name in the right place” .

You can get beyond parish records with other sources e.g.wills, chancery pleadings, lists of freemen etc. You also tend to find that going back in time families often followed more or less the same line of employment for several generations, which makes it easier. I also found that family history as related by older relatives in the past tends to be broadly correct . 

If Ploppys family history was done diligently, it’s far more likely to be right than wrong.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, E I Addio said:

No reason why Ploppys family tree should be wrong. Having gone back to about the 14th Century through the male line of my family I would say you can go back to about 1700 with certainty, about 1500 with a high degree of confidence, then back to about 1300 on the basis of “right name in the right place” .

I don't disagree - I've done exactly the same. 

The problem in Ploppy's case is that Drake doesn't appear to have any descendants - either legitimate or illegitimate - which is not me claiming it, but those who've researched his genealogy.

It's maybe a genuinely held belief, but family traditions can be mistaken as I've discovered. One side of our family was supposed to have been part of the MacPherson clan, but when I actually looked into it, the connection turned out to be very tenuous, just as certain other oral traditions proved to be confused (albeit not totally inaccurate). But on the other hand, other interesting ancestors turned up whom I had no previous knowledge about. 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy