I had a very large family tree saved at MyHeritage, which seemed to overlap with someone elses. But last year it was suddenly deleted, and MyHeritage claim I never had an account. Despite me providing proof with a pdf-file I still had with parts of the family tree. Since they don't respond anymore, I gave up researching. I just don't have the energy to built up another account from scratch. My grandparents, who provided most of the information, are also gone now. It's sad, I was really looking forward to matching with that other family.
Moral of the story: if you're descendant for noble families, there's a pretty big change there is incest on your bloodline, don't overthink it, you're probably fine
@@LeoNunes-gy8ie also if your ancestors were small-town farmers. People who farmed land tended to stay within walking distance of where they were born, and often married people from the same small village. Marriages between first cousins were extremely rare, but second or third cousins were pretty commonplace.
@kathilisi3019 True. There were three families living near each other in rural Georgia, USA for several generations. That side of my family is a bit more of a family bush than a family tree, although I only had second cousins marry (on multiple occasions) rather than first cousins.
Also, if your in a non-evangelist religious minority. There are a quite a few incidences of otherwise very rare heterozygous diseases & disabilities in the old order Amish population right now. Socially accepted cousin marriage isn't really a thing in the population, but bottlenecks still happen 'cause a gene pool ain't bigger than it members.
It's so wild that you're able to track down relatives that far back! The fact that you've got nobility in your family tree is probably both the reason for the child marriages and the number of generations you can track. I've been doing genealogy as a hobby for a couple of years now, but my ancestors are commoners and the furthest I can trace them back is somewhere in the 1600s, when records started being kept for normal people, not just nobility.
Most people of any European ancestry have nobility in their ancestry if they go back far enough through enough lines. We traced my mom's family (who were poor white americans through most of the 20th century) back to charlemagne via a royal bastard. You can trace the fall from nobility through younger sons.
@@jenrosejenrose7417 well, I traced my ancestors back to the beginning of the written records I could find, and found plenty of farmers, shepherds, merchants, sailors, weavers and woodcutters, but not a single royal among them. My DNA results indicated a 1-2% Asian heritage though, which apparently means it's pretty likely I'm descended from Genghis Khan. No Charlemagne for me though, probably.
@@kathilisi3019 Same haha, I've traced two lines back to the late 1500s (farmers) but there are no records before that, so no Charlemagne for me either lol
Thankfully, a lot of these marriages (contrary to popular belief) were treated more like betrothals and rarely consummated before the wife was a little older (most likely due to how unsafe childbirth is for a 10-12 year old rather than for ethical reasons, but yay!)
MyHeritage flags marriages that seem improbable due to a young age. The youngest person I found in my extended family tree was a girl who claimed to be 15 at her wedding, but her date of birth made her 13 and a half. Her husband was 25, and their first child was born less than six months after the wedding. This was in the 19th century, and they emigrated to the US in the 1870s with all of their underage children. She outlived her husband and got married again in the States and lived to be nearly 90. She's not a direct ancestor, but learning about her life was fascinating. She had about 13 kids in total.
I was going to comment that! The marriages, especially in noble families, were to make sure everyone would keep to their word (and the bride could acclimate to the new family and learn whatever customs of the new place, if there were any), and it was expected that they would be consummated only when both parties were a bit older. Of course the older spouse would be the one to decide it and may not follow the social expectations but yeah, not as bad as it seems at first
My family tree is full of these poor women that got married 16yo to18yo (lucky they were even that old) had 12 kids and died. Then look at their husbands and as soon as their wives died, they remarried some 16yo-18yo to take care of the remaining children and have 12 more. Right up until...drum roll...birth control was invented. Suddenly less kids, and they LIVED LONGER.
Noticed that in mine, too. Lots of teenagers getting married, having 7+ kids, and dying within 2 years of the last one’s birth. Also, lots and lots of the same handful of families intermarrying. Especially in 1500s-1800s Scottish Highlands and early Colonial America. Somewhat understandable at least, those tended to be very small villages where options were rather limited.
In the men’s defense, they got married right away, because someone needed to take care of the children, since the men worked 16 hour days. If they didn’t, the oldest girl would need to drop out of school to care for the children. In my opinion, it’s better they married and let the girls finish school.
@@findingbeautyinthepain8965 The women were working 16 hours a day, too. A farmer’s wife is literally just a farmer, doing all the same jobs her husband is AND maintaining the house itself AND taking care of all of the kids.
@@rekkariley652 Actually, the women worked 24 hour days lol. Don’t forget, men didn’t get up with crying babies. Plus, women usually were breastfeeding at least one baby every 3 hours. My point is, men didn’t do childcare. (And the men who worked in factories or as merchants literally couldn’t for 16 hours a day.) They also didn’t do the laborious domestic duties. So I am happy many of the widowed men didn’t let a 10 year old daughter take over all of that backbreaking work.
It's worth noting that royal marriages between two young people were more of a contract meant to unite two families than anything else. Often the children wouldn't be reunited or live in their own homes until they were much older. And weddings were usually between a proxy from the bride's family to a proxy from the groom's family. Obviously there were exceptions to the rule-Margaret Beaufort being an infamous one, which was a scandal in its day-but I thought sharing this might put you and others at ease!
As a history teacher, Id like to point out that marriage back then was more of a "I book that one!" deal, and rarely involved sex until the woman began her monthly cycle at around 15-19. Katherine Mortimer only had her first child at 24 yrs old. Interesting fact, they would often get married while in different parts of the country/Europe. The husband would have an official put his knee under the covers while she was in bed, in a ceremony, and that was considered consummating the marriage, making it un-anulable (much harder to get a divorce).
@@Gahrazel Maybe they considered it the most respectful body part. An arm/hand wouldn’t be respectful at all. The man could take advantage and touch the little girl. A leg/foot could still feel things. You have to bend your knee to put just your knee under, which means you can not go deep enough under the covers to actually touch the little girl.
@@islamurphy445 still it was super rare for them to made kids consume their marriage. They were mostly 15+ It's not only about first period but also about how risky were very young pregnancies
@@Purple001-eh6zoIt was rioting by far right extremists who are anti-immigrant. They mistakenly thought it was an immigrant who had killed 3 children and wounded others at a Taylor Swift dance party, as that misinformation was spread online. The government is going after the rioters and the ones who spread the online misinformation. There have been larger counter protests by anti racism, pro immigrant groups in response to the riots.
Of course I want a part 2! And 3, and 4! This was really fascinating and amusing. And you’re related to one of the lovers of Edward the Second? Wow! I used to teach that play in my Gay and Lesbian literature class. I’ll never again think of a hot poker the same way. 🎀💖🎀
I read “married at 10!!” & I was like: not child married 😨 Also you’ve got the most interesting family tree I’ve heard in my life From the ye-olde gay family member to the literal pirate.
How are you just casually dropping in the fact that you're just a teensy little Plantagenet descendant. Just a king of England in the family tree, no biggie.
I think it's common to be descended from royalty in England. I looked into it once as my mum established that she was a direct descendant of William the Conqueror. I can't remember the exact statistics, but I came across something years back which said that most people with English heritage are related to Edward III (or William the Conqueror). As Jessica says in this video, the pool really was tiny so it's normal to have gateway ancestors and be able to to trace back to a King/Queen of England.
Crazy to be able to learn about your heritage that far back! I live in a country where records like that probably don't exist, so I can only imagine what my ancestors might have been like.
Same! One of my grandparents was born in tiny Spanish village that I highly doubt still has records past 1800s, another two were children of immigrants from that same situation and the last one is local, but once again from a small countryside town and record-keeping from before the 1900s is spotty. I know my heritage up to my great great grandparents pretty well but I doubt I'll get further back!
only if you somehow end up connected to a royal/noble line, otherwise in most countries church records only go back to around 1700s, in some maybe 1600s for the general population
I love looking through my family ancestry and with my DNA my family discovered we were direct descendants of James IV of Scotland. But recently, we found that the Stewarts were not the only Royal Family in our tree. They like royals through antiquity made families with other royals. And though the Stewarts fought with the English Royals regularly they also had no problem marrying them and producing pretenders to each other's thrones. The Stewarts of Atholl also in my tree, married a Beaufort, who descended from Prince John of Gaunt. His dad was Edward III of England (House of Anjevin/Plantagenet). Jessica, isn't history and genealogy, fun?
The twist and turns in this history lesson. I’m not sure if the amount of chaos in your family tree or that you have enough content to make a part 2 is more worrying. Definitely plenty of stories to tell Rupert.
My husband is also a descendent of John of Gaunt, via Cardinal Beaufort. The Cardinal had a daughter named Jane who married Sir Stradling. My husband is a descendent of the Stradings.
I used the myheritage dna test to try to sort out my family tree and I was warned on a website that a dna test can reveal things that you might not be prepared for. Of course, I stumbled upon a shocking family secret. 😅
I am more concerned with what those companies would do with my DNA data. Ancestry DNA companies are a legal grey area in terms of medical privacy laws, so they absolutely could sell your genome data.
I don't know a lot about my family before they arrived in the Americas. My mother's father's family arrived very early. One, Penelope Stout, was going to New Amsterdam when the ship, with her and her first husband shipwrecked on the coast of what is now New Jersey. Her husband was very ill, the other people on the ship tried to get her to come, but she elected to stay with her husband. Then she, and her husband, were attacked by natives. He was killed and she was badly injured. She crawled into a hollow tree and stayed there for 3 days before a couple of natives found her. One, who had been in the group who had killed her husband, wanted to finish the job he started, but the older one took her back to their village and healed her. There is some debate about how she ended up going to New York because between the time they had left Amsterdam and she was 'rescued' the English had taken the colony. While she lived in Amsterdam, they say she was actually of English heritage. Later, after most of her children were born, she moved to a new colony in the Monmouth area of New Jersey. (FYI, Monmouth area is where Bruce Springsteen is from.) However, my mother's mother's mother was born some place in Germany. My grandmother was born in 1896... Yes, I'm old, I'm 70.
I am such a sucker for historical family drama. My Nana and Gran were telling me all the family’s dark secrets like we were gossiping teenage girls lmao.
Most definitely a part 2, please! I did the DNA kit from My Heritage, and they keep emailing me to upgrade to the fancy My Heritage. If this is what you get from it, I think I will upgrade!
@@cynhanrahan4012 I upgraded to the fancy MyHeritage for a couple of years and I find it very useful. However, it's not magic. You can only find records and links to other families if you put in a little bit of work to begin with, and also if your ancestors lived in places where reliable records were kept. A good place to start is with the exact date of birth and birthplace of at least your grandparents, better yet great-grandparents. If you don't have that info, you won't get much out of your subscription. I've had a person contact me because her DNA results showed that we were probably second or third cousins, but she didn't have any info about her father or his family, so that whole half of her family tree was blank. We established that we weren't related on her mother's side, concluded it was probably her father's side, but had to leave it at that since she didn't even know her grandparents' names.
Wow, we have common ancestors! I knew Elizabeth Woodville was my 16th great grandmother, and that Lady Jane Grey was my 13th great aunt. Because of this I knew that I was related to the Plantagenet family as well, so I reached out to my dad who does all the family tree stuff and found out that Joan Alice Plantagenet is my 1st cousin 20x removed, and we are related to her via the Grey family line. I have watched your channel for quite some time because I also have hEDS (and ADHD) and I find it fascinating that we have intersecting ancestors since hEDS is genetic.
Especially interesting as one of the Grey sisters (Mary) is known to have had some sort of disability which could have been linked to genetic conditions such as EDS, having been described as “little and crook-backed”.
@@francescascanlan4549 yeah, it’s not like we had any idea of what EDS was back then, it would have been documented based on how it presented in her and not by a specific name. It’s got me curious about who else in the family might have had it.
On my mother’s father’s side we have a littoral family history book. It is crazy. They have a little chapel and apparently at some point they went on the crusades since they were in the church during that time. The women all had arranged marriages basically almost from birth , it was crazy but that was how wealthier families did things ( I mean the boys also got arranged marriages too if they weren’t in the church so it was just kind of like kids marrying kids).
I love family histories. It's such an interesting way to learn about history. None of my ancestors were particularly wealthy until the 20th century, but I've still learned about little niche pockets of history that I otherwise would not have known about.
I loved this! Would love to see more of these, it’s amazing what you have been able to find out about your family and I can only imagine that there’s more amazing tidbits to be discovered.
You put so much preparation into these videos! Thank you for all the hard work. You're really interesting (plus you have an awesome British accent which I enjoy).
It would be really cool to hear more about your research process and spend more time on individual ancestors/lines. Discovering more in depth information, especially about more unknown people or details that you wouldn't otherwise hear about, is so wonderful. It really helps to understand these people as human beings who just lived at a different time/under different circumstances. Talking about these circumstances would be great too! It's lots of work, though and I understand it might not be possible.
I love Ancestry! I researched my family history and was very lucky to find a distant cousin who has already spend 20+ years researching and writing books. Like lots of characters who range from a fairly known actress from the 60s, a recipient of the Victoria cross, makers of telescopes/mircroscopes some of which are in possession of the science museum now. On the other side my Grandma had a secret half brother she never met even though at one time they lived a matter of miles apart.
So many people are disturbed by the things they find in their family history. I like this style of video as a way of coping with the uncomfortable truths of ones family tree and reaffirming who they are as an individual in contrast. Our pasts don't define us, after all.
With that lot, I find it hilarious that they found no English DNA 😂 You picked all the good Celtic bits. Knowing they were relatives might have made history lessons slightly more interesting, I guess.... ❤❤❤
I've always loved learning and hearing about other people's family trees because to me family is kind of a foreign concept due to being the child of someone who was adopted so everything to do with family and how different kinds of family dynamics work is just fascinating.
I love your videos - including this one -- and I hope as a fellow history buff, you won't take umbrage at these corrections: The images of Eleanor de Clare and Katherine Mortimer are actually portraits of different women from 200 years later. The first is Eleanor of Austria (1498 - 1558), a portrait which someone uploaded onto Eleanor de Clare's Find A Grave probably out of confusion over her name. I'm still trying to find the second.
The Edward image at 11:35 is actually a painting of Thomas Cromwell from the 1530s, the sketch of John/George at 11:30 looks like a Holbein sketch from the mid-1500s, and the Katherine at 12:38 portrait looks like it's from the 1500s. The "nunlike" lady in the veil image is probably 1400s at the earliest.
I love how you had a display board like that! I do ancestry as well and definitely going to put together some boards like that to help explain all the craziness in my tree to other family members.
I’m pausing each person to look up! You’re definitely related to my wife, Edward III is her direct ancestor 😮. I have John Stewarts in my family tree around that time but not sure if the same one - Scottish naming systems get confusing because it signaled your birth order not really a unique label - eg if the first son in a family is called Charles after their paternal grandfather then cousins who are first sons are also called Charles. It sometimes helps works out who is who, sometimes it just gets confusing.
I love this. It’s like all fanfics you can imagine in one family 😭😂 Would love a part 2! Family history is sooo interesting, it can tell you a lot about yourself, and things you resonate with at all XD
I remember early on in one of my relationships -- and I was given a multi chart run-down of a similar nature regarding my then GFs family. I seriously think that she expected me to remember much of that. I did not, in fact, remember much of that.
If you like Philippa Gregory you'd love the well researched historical novels of Sharon Kay Penman. She wrote a series on the Plantagenet dynasty, though my absolute favourite are what's known as the Welsh trilogy. All her books have brilliant authors notes describing which details are fact and which details she has created or altered to aid the narrative. Its always surpising to discover just how much is true although you may be relieved to know that although children were married very young they were usually then brought up in the household of their betrothed until they were of a suitable age to consumate the marriage. I reccomend starting with Here Be Dragons, the first in the Welsh trilogy, I discovered my copy in a second hand book store and it started my love of SKP's historical fiction although it wasnt the first book she wrote. Sadly she died unexpectedly a year or two ago so there will be no more, but she did manage to conclude her Plantagenet series. Do hope you find them, i just know you'll love them. Really enjoyed this video, Jessica, great research.👍😊
This was fascinating. Coinfusing, but interesting. I would be interested in a second part IF you are so inclined to share your family tree. I took a break from mine but I would love to get back into discovering my familyh's history. I have been thinking of doing a DNA search - this is the second ad for MyHeratige I have seen today. Thank you for exploring this and sharing.
I understood little of this. I'm glad to be invited to listen to this enthusiastic knowledge-sharing! Always a joy to watch your creative undertakings, Jessica
looking forward to part 2! having this much court drama in your family history is quite fascinating lol. can't wait to learn whether the scandinavian part of your blood is also blue. cuz the amount of royalty upon royalty upon royalty here... wow
And important note is that in a lot of cases, while they were married very young - typically these marriages were not 'consummated' until parties were much older. These young marriages also typically only happened among the rich - because yay politics - most historical documentation shows that the average woman wouldn't be married until her late teens early twenties. But most documentation that we do have isn't of your average person but of rich ppl so... we know mostly about the really young marriages.
Yes for part 2! I got so invested! I did some digging for my own family tree, but for few reasons - I come from poor family, my country didn't exist for more than 100 years, reading Polish from 18th and 19th century in cyryllic is a extreme sport even if I can read cyryllic and the records from one church were destroyed during WWII, I also used free sources - I could only get to birth records from 1740s (I got earlier names, but without records), I also don't know German to get a hold on other side of family. At least people that I could find got married at reasonable age, most were over 20, and in similar age group (I think the biggest difference was my great-granny married in 1934, it was 10 years and she and her husband despised each other, however she was chronically ill widow with two small kids and he had a house and a horse, she had barely any money, she had to marry someone. They somehow had two kids, but even my granny calls her father in stories 'drunkard and idiot' 😂). But also women in my family lived for long time, I mean, poor woman born in 1750 living 80 years? And she wasn't the only one. That can't be said for their husbands, but it's my family's curse for generations.
My mom does genealogy, so I know I’m related to Laura Ingalls Wilder, a baby born on the Mayflower (the fathers first wife I believe), and a slave owner for a guy from my old Texas history class. That of course is not the best thing, but my cousins, who are twin brothers accidentally got named the guys two names.
![Pirates are gay and the best one was a woman // Historical Profiles [CC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hgfsVA52ggU/mqdefault.jpg)
Buy a DNA kit here bit.ly/Fozard and use the coupon code FOZARD for free shipping!
I had a very large family tree saved at MyHeritage, which seemed to overlap with someone elses. But last year it was suddenly deleted, and MyHeritage claim I never had an account. Despite me providing proof with a pdf-file I still had with parts of the family tree. Since they don't respond anymore, I gave up researching. I just don't have the energy to built up another account from scratch. My grandparents, who provided most of the information, are also gone now. It's sad, I was really looking forward to matching with that other family.
Moral of the story: if you're descendant for noble families, there's a pretty big change there is incest on your bloodline, don't overthink it, you're probably fine
@@LeoNunes-gy8ie also if your ancestors were small-town farmers. People who farmed land tended to stay within walking distance of where they were born, and often married people from the same small village. Marriages between first cousins were extremely rare, but second or third cousins were pretty commonplace.
@kathilisi3019 True. There were three families living near each other in rural Georgia, USA for several generations. That side of my family is a bit more of a family bush than a family tree, although I only had second cousins marry (on multiple occasions) rather than first cousins.
@@kate4781family bush, that's hilarious 😂👋
Or (which is probably a unkind thought) you end up with serveral genetic illnesses/diseases/disabilities.
Really not that uncommon in nobility
Also, if your in a non-evangelist religious minority. There are a quite a few incidences of otherwise very rare heterozygous diseases & disabilities in the old order Amish population right now. Socially accepted cousin marriage isn't really a thing in the population, but bottlenecks still happen 'cause a gene pool ain't bigger than it members.
It's so wild that you're able to track down relatives that far back! The fact that you've got nobility in your family tree is probably both the reason for the child marriages and the number of generations you can track. I've been doing genealogy as a hobby for a couple of years now, but my ancestors are commoners and the furthest I can trace them back is somewhere in the 1600s, when records started being kept for normal people, not just nobility.
Most people of any European ancestry have nobility in their ancestry if they go back far enough through enough lines. We traced my mom's family (who were poor white americans through most of the 20th century) back to charlemagne via a royal bastard. You can trace the fall from nobility through younger sons.
@@jenrosejenrose7417 well, I traced my ancestors back to the beginning of the written records I could find, and found plenty of farmers, shepherds, merchants, sailors, weavers and woodcutters, but not a single royal among them. My DNA results indicated a 1-2% Asian heritage though, which apparently means it's pretty likely I'm descended from Genghis Khan. No Charlemagne for me though, probably.
@@kathilisi3019 Same haha, I've traced two lines back to the late 1500s (farmers) but there are no records before that, so no Charlemagne for me either lol
Can't even get past my grandfather for my Irish ancestry... No clue what's going on there. 😭😭
same here, not a single noble for me just a bunch of farmers and 1 priest :D
Thankfully, a lot of these marriages (contrary to popular belief) were treated more like betrothals and rarely consummated before the wife was a little older (most likely due to how unsafe childbirth is for a 10-12 year old rather than for ethical reasons, but yay!)
Mind you, some young brides and grooms, might not have been so lucky... But yeah, not as common or bad as the marriage records would have you believe.
MyHeritage flags marriages that seem improbable due to a young age. The youngest person I found in my extended family tree was a girl who claimed to be 15 at her wedding, but her date of birth made her 13 and a half. Her husband was 25, and their first child was born less than six months after the wedding. This was in the 19th century, and they emigrated to the US in the 1870s with all of their underage children. She outlived her husband and got married again in the States and lived to be nearly 90. She's not a direct ancestor, but learning about her life was fascinating. She had about 13 kids in total.
I was going to comment that! The marriages, especially in noble families, were to make sure everyone would keep to their word (and the bride could acclimate to the new family and learn whatever customs of the new place, if there were any), and it was expected that they would be consummated only when both parties were a bit older. Of course the older spouse would be the one to decide it and may not follow the social expectations but yeah, not as bad as it seems at first
Unfortunately that is not the case with modern child marriages in the usa. 🤮
@@greenspitfire17 yes - different motivations. legal contracts to connect families vs legal loopholes to cover up and enable abuse
My family tree is full of these poor women that got married 16yo to18yo (lucky they were even that old) had 12 kids and died. Then look at their husbands and as soon as their wives died, they remarried some 16yo-18yo to take care of the remaining children and have 12 more. Right up until...drum roll...birth control was invented. Suddenly less kids, and they LIVED LONGER.
Noticed that in mine, too. Lots of teenagers getting married, having 7+ kids, and dying within 2 years of the last one’s birth.
Also, lots and lots of the same handful of families intermarrying. Especially in 1500s-1800s Scottish Highlands and early Colonial America. Somewhat understandable at least, those tended to be very small villages where options were rather limited.
In the men’s defense, they got married right away, because someone needed to take care of the children, since the men worked 16 hour days. If they didn’t, the oldest girl would need to drop out of school to care for the children. In my opinion, it’s better they married and let the girls finish school.
@@findingbeautyinthepain8965 The women were working 16 hours a day, too. A farmer’s wife is literally just a farmer, doing all the same jobs her husband is AND maintaining the house itself AND taking care of all of the kids.
@@rekkariley652 Actually, the women worked 24 hour days lol. Don’t forget, men didn’t get up with crying babies. Plus, women usually were breastfeeding at least one baby every 3 hours. My point is, men didn’t do childcare. (And the men who worked in factories or as merchants literally couldn’t for 16 hours a day.) They also didn’t do the laborious domestic duties. So I am happy many of the widowed men didn’t let a 10 year old daughter take over all of that backbreaking work.
It's worth noting that royal marriages between two young people were more of a contract meant to unite two families than anything else. Often the children wouldn't be reunited or live in their own homes until they were much older. And weddings were usually between a proxy from the bride's family to a proxy from the groom's family. Obviously there were exceptions to the rule-Margaret Beaufort being an infamous one, which was a scandal in its day-but I thought sharing this might put you and others at ease!
What I'm getting is that Jessica is a descendant of nobility and/or royalty and as such, she is truly a ✨queen✨
A lot of English people are vaguely it was a while ago
@@fishfish7985 yeah but most of us can't trace the exact lineage
@@Mx.Phoenix yeah although I feel that is something to do with how hdratige what's it makes it's money
As a history teacher, Id like to point out that marriage back then was more of a "I book that one!" deal, and rarely involved sex until the woman began her monthly cycle at around 15-19. Katherine Mortimer only had her first child at 24 yrs old. Interesting fact, they would often get married while in different parts of the country/Europe. The husband would have an official put his knee under the covers while she was in bed, in a ceremony, and that was considered consummating the marriage, making it un-anulable (much harder to get a divorce).
Of all the possibly symbolic bodyparts, why the knee?
@@Gahrazel Maybe they considered it the most respectful body part. An arm/hand wouldn’t be respectful at all. The man could take advantage and touch the little girl. A leg/foot could still feel things. You have to bend your knee to put just your knee under, which means you can not go deep enough under the covers to actually touch the little girl.
What about for girls who started their period earlier? I know many people who started at 11 or 12
@@islamurphy445 still it was super rare for them to made kids consume their marriage. They were mostly 15+
It's not only about first period but also about how risky were very young pregnancies
@@olakeska7908 that makes a lot of sense, thanks for the clarification
Please keep yourself safe. It's crazy up in the UK right now.
Sending love, solidarity and well wishes to all. Keep safe too, thank you ❤️
wait so i haven't been paying attention to british politics (am american) what's going on?
@@Purple001-eh6zoThere are riots
@@KitKat17700 could you elaborate?
@@Purple001-eh6zoIt was rioting by far right extremists who are anti-immigrant. They mistakenly thought it was an immigrant who had killed 3 children and wounded others at a Taylor Swift dance party, as that misinformation was spread online. The government is going after the rioters and the ones who spread the online misinformation. There have been larger counter protests by anti racism, pro immigrant groups in response to the riots.
Of course I want a part 2! And 3, and 4! This was really fascinating and amusing.
And you’re related to one of the lovers of Edward the Second? Wow! I used to teach that play in my Gay and Lesbian literature class. I’ll never again think of a hot poker the same way.
🎀💖🎀
Yes!! Definitely up for more parts!!! This is so interesting!
Same. Jessica presents it so well.
I read “married at 10!!” & I was like: not child married 😨
Also you’ve got the most interesting family tree I’ve heard in my life
From the ye-olde gay family member to the literal pirate.
I know…. 😳
@@jessicaoutoftheclosetI hope u see the edit I made-
The amount of royal blood is actually insane!! This is so cool omg
All I could think of was "so Jessica is like King Ralph in the movie and will hopefully be our Queen and ruler one day" 😂😂
How are you just casually dropping in the fact that you're just a teensy little Plantagenet descendant. Just a king of England in the family tree, no biggie.
Considering she's directly related to one of the fathers of modern rheumatology in the UK, this isn't very surprising.
@@EyeGlassTrainofMind wait, huh?
I think it's common to be descended from royalty in England. I looked into it once as my mum established that she was a direct descendant of William the Conqueror. I can't remember the exact statistics, but I came across something years back which said that most people with English heritage are related to Edward III (or William the Conqueror). As Jessica says in this video, the pool really was tiny so it's normal to have gateway ancestors and be able to to trace back to a King/Queen of England.
@@mch1811 yea its like ghengis khan on mini scale
THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING
Oh-my-God! Lancasters, York, Neville... Your ancestors are literally History of Europe.😮😮😮
More like the United Kingdom
@@jonathan9798splashes of russian noble blood here and there too... so - europe, really
Plantagenets also came up
Crazy to be able to learn about your heritage that far back!
I live in a country where records like that probably don't exist, so I can only imagine what my ancestors might have been like.
Same! One of my grandparents was born in tiny Spanish village that I highly doubt still has records past 1800s, another two were children of immigrants from that same situation and the last one is local, but once again from a small countryside town and record-keeping from before the 1900s is spotty. I know my heritage up to my great great grandparents pretty well but I doubt I'll get further back!
only if you somehow end up connected to a royal/noble line, otherwise in most countries church records only go back to around 1700s, in some maybe 1600s for the general population
Well of course, Jessica, a part II is necessary. This ride was so fun, another must be even more!
I love looking through my family ancestry and with my DNA my family discovered we were direct descendants of James IV of Scotland. But recently, we found that the Stewarts were not the only Royal Family in our tree. They like royals through antiquity made families with other royals. And though the Stewarts fought with the English Royals regularly they also had no problem marrying them and producing pretenders to each other's thrones.
The Stewarts of Atholl also in my tree, married a Beaufort, who descended from Prince John of Gaunt. His dad was Edward III of England (House of Anjevin/Plantagenet). Jessica, isn't history and genealogy, fun?
The twist and turns in this history lesson. I’m not sure if the amount of chaos in your family tree or that you have enough content to make a part 2 is more worrying.
Definitely plenty of stories to tell Rupert.
Please do a part 2 - I love learning about random historical events and people (blame my Horrible Histories and my Secondary School History teacher 😂)
My husband is also a descendent of John of Gaunt, via Cardinal Beaufort. The Cardinal had a daughter named Jane who married Sir Stradling. My husband is a descendent of the Stradings.
Woah that’s so cool
U probs know but John of Gaunt was the person who originally built Lancaster Castle so like rlly rlly rich 😭
I used the myheritage dna test to try to sort out my family tree and I was warned on a website that a dna test can reveal things that you might not be prepared for. Of course, I stumbled upon a shocking family secret. 😅
Oh goodness… sounds like it’s your turn to make a video! 🫢
Please 🙏 what is the secret???
I would pay for you to do a breakdown of my family like this omg this was so easy to digest and so soothing
I definitely want a part 2! I love historical tea😂😂😂
I fear taking a DNA test. The potential for upending my whole self identity is vast.
I am more concerned with what those companies would do with my DNA data. Ancestry DNA companies are a legal grey area in terms of medical privacy laws, so they absolutely could sell your genome data.
@@kirstenpaff8946 And the police have been known to use it to track down criminals that you may be related to
@@kirstenpaff8946 you'd better not shed any hair outside your house then
@@kirstenpaff8946 would that be bad?
I don't know a lot about my family before they arrived in the Americas. My mother's father's family arrived very early. One, Penelope Stout, was going to New Amsterdam when the ship, with her and her first husband shipwrecked on the coast of what is now New Jersey. Her husband was very ill, the other people on the ship tried to get her to come, but she elected to stay with her husband. Then she, and her husband, were attacked by natives. He was killed and she was badly injured. She crawled into a hollow tree and stayed there for 3 days before a couple of natives found her. One, who had been in the group who had killed her husband, wanted to finish the job he started, but the older one took her back to their village and healed her. There is some debate about how she ended up going to New York because between the time they had left Amsterdam and she was 'rescued' the English had taken the colony. While she lived in Amsterdam, they say she was actually of English heritage. Later, after most of her children were born, she moved to a new colony in the Monmouth area of New Jersey. (FYI, Monmouth area is where Bruce Springsteen is from.) However, my mother's mother's mother was born some place in Germany. My grandmother was born in 1896... Yes, I'm old, I'm 70.
That makes sense- a lot of Puritans and Quakers fled to the Netherlands from England in the 17th century
I'd be interested to hear about the non-British ones, Baltics or Scandinavian definitely
This was a banger of a video! I don't even care that it was basically just a really long ad. I would love to see a part 2!
I am such a sucker for historical family drama. My Nana and Gran were telling me all the family’s dark secrets like we were gossiping teenage girls lmao.
You are the best storyteller ever. Love your subtle humour. Can’t wait for part 2. 😃🫠🤗
I love all of this. I feel like "Roast my Dead Ancestors" could be an entire genre on youtube. Please do more in depth stories on some of these.
This was so confusing to try and follow, but very interesting and fun!! The amount of famous/infamous/royal ancestors is so cool!!
Once again, another delightfully witty and educational video. Thwack! Loved the pointer.
yo rupert spill that great grandparent tea in a couple decades sjgwhjgjhwegq
Most definitely a part 2, please! I did the DNA kit from My Heritage, and they keep emailing me to upgrade to the fancy My Heritage. If this is what you get from it, I think I will upgrade!
@@cynhanrahan4012 I upgraded to the fancy MyHeritage for a couple of years and I find it very useful. However, it's not magic. You can only find records and links to other families if you put in a little bit of work to begin with, and also if your ancestors lived in places where reliable records were kept. A good place to start is with the exact date of birth and birthplace of at least your grandparents, better yet great-grandparents. If you don't have that info, you won't get much out of your subscription. I've had a person contact me because her DNA results showed that we were probably second or third cousins, but she didn't have any info about her father or his family, so that whole half of her family tree was blank. We established that we weren't related on her mother's side, concluded it was probably her father's side, but had to leave it at that since she didn't even know her grandparents' names.
Wow, we have common ancestors! I knew Elizabeth Woodville was my 16th great grandmother, and that Lady Jane Grey was my 13th great aunt. Because of this I knew that I was related to the Plantagenet family as well, so I reached out to my dad who does all the family tree stuff and found out that Joan Alice Plantagenet is my 1st cousin 20x removed, and we are related to her via the Grey family line. I have watched your channel for quite some time because I also have hEDS (and ADHD) and I find it fascinating that we have intersecting ancestors since hEDS is genetic.
Especially interesting as one of the Grey sisters (Mary) is known to have had some sort of disability which could have been linked to genetic conditions such as EDS, having been described as “little and crook-backed”.
@@francescascanlan4549 yeah, it’s not like we had any idea of what EDS was back then, it would have been documented based on how it presented in her and not by a specific name. It’s got me curious about who else in the family might have had it.
This is such a cool concept!
Thank you! I hope you enjoy x
@@jessicaoutofthecloset I really did! It made me want to explore my own ancestors more. I hope you make a part 2!
On my mother’s father’s side we have a littoral family history book. It is crazy. They have a little chapel and apparently at some point they went on the crusades since they were in the church during that time. The women all had arranged marriages basically almost from birth , it was crazy but that was how wealthier families did things ( I mean the boys also got arranged marriages too if they weren’t in the church so it was just kind of like kids marrying kids).
Wow, that was fun, Jessica!
I am 100% in for part 2!
Especially the don’t-invade-a-country-for-love lesson!
I love family histories. It's such an interesting way to learn about history. None of my ancestors were particularly wealthy until the 20th century, but I've still learned about little niche pockets of history that I otherwise would not have known about.
definitely more info, its all fascinating. My fam is related to the group who first attempted to assassinate the archduke that started WW1
My family has a distant link to a mass murderer. Not everything you find is fun. 😢
@@kathilisi3019 I can see how darkness is troublesome.
I loved this! Would love to see more of these, it’s amazing what you have been able to find out about your family and I can only imagine that there’s more amazing tidbits to be discovered.
That’s actually really cool that you’re related to the subjects of the famous painting!
You put so much preparation into these videos! Thank you for all the hard work. You're really interesting (plus you have an awesome British accent which I enjoy).
Were cousins! 19x removed, but cousins! (Through the Fitzalans)
Your family history is FASCINATING. I’m right back in my “Treacherous Women of Tudor History” course in college LOL
It would be really cool to hear more about your research process and spend more time on individual ancestors/lines. Discovering more in depth information, especially about more unknown people or details that you wouldn't otherwise hear about, is so wonderful. It really helps to understand these people as human beings who just lived at a different time/under different circumstances. Talking about these circumstances would be great too! It's lots of work, though and I understand it might not be possible.
I need a part two. This is wild. Good roasting, Jessica.
I love Ancestry! I researched my family history and was very lucky to find a distant cousin who has already spend 20+ years researching and writing books. Like lots of characters who range from a fairly known actress from the 60s, a recipient of the Victoria cross, makers of telescopes/mircroscopes some of which are in possession of the science museum now. On the other side my Grandma had a secret half brother she never met even though at one time they lived a matter of miles apart.
I also enjoy Phillipa Gregory's books!!
Your family history is fascinating. Please do a part 2; I would love to watch it.
So interesting! We definitely need a part two. You're related to Plantagenets and Shuysky how cool is that
Quite the combination 🤣
I would love a part two and let me just manifest, a book series 😆 I’m amazed at all the connections to major historical figures!
So many people are disturbed by the things they find in their family history. I like this style of video as a way of coping with the uncomfortable truths of ones family tree and reaffirming who they are as an individual in contrast. Our pasts don't define us, after all.
With that lot, I find it hilarious that they found no English DNA 😂 You picked all the good Celtic bits. Knowing they were relatives might have made history lessons slightly more interesting, I guess.... ❤❤❤
I'm totally lost, but in love with this video ahaha
I've always loved learning and hearing about other people's family trees because to me family is kind of a foreign concept due to being the child of someone who was adopted so everything to do with family and how different kinds of family dynamics work is just fascinating.
This was very engrossing. Absolutely here for part 2!
I love your videos - including this one -- and I hope as a fellow history buff, you won't take umbrage at these corrections: The images of Eleanor de Clare and Katherine Mortimer are actually portraits of different women from 200 years later. The first is Eleanor of Austria (1498 - 1558), a portrait which someone uploaded onto Eleanor de Clare's Find A Grave probably out of confusion over her name. I'm still trying to find the second.
The Edward image at 11:35 is actually a painting of Thomas Cromwell from the 1530s, the sketch of John/George at 11:30 looks like a Holbein sketch from the mid-1500s, and the Katherine at 12:38 portrait looks like it's from the 1500s. The "nunlike" lady in the veil image is probably 1400s at the earliest.
Thank you, I also noticed that! It’s down to Google throwing up random and inaccurate images when a name is searched
I love how you had a display board like that! I do ancestry as well and definitely going to put together some boards like that to help explain all the craziness in my tree to other family members.
Part 2 please!!! This was SOOOOO much fun and incredibly interesting!
I loved your video as always. This history ramble was very entertaining. Thank you
I’m pausing each person to look up! You’re definitely related to my wife, Edward III is her direct ancestor 😮. I have John Stewarts in my family tree around that time but not sure if the same one - Scottish naming systems get confusing because it signaled your birth order not really a unique label - eg if the first son in a family is called Charles after their paternal grandfather then cousins who are first sons are also called Charles. It sometimes helps works out who is who, sometimes it just gets confusing.
Amazing! So many people I know of from histories and historical novels.
More, please!
This was absolutely wild, please we absolutely need more
Let's have a part two!! Love this!!
I love this. It’s like all fanfics you can imagine in one family 😭😂
Would love a part 2!
Family history is sooo interesting, it can tell you a lot about yourself, and things you resonate with at all XD
"No shoes on the bed" had me cackling!
I love it. I'd love to hear more.
ABSOLUTELY NEED A WHOLE SERIES!
I'd love a part two. What a wild family history
I remember early on in one of my relationships -- and I was given a multi chart run-down of a similar nature regarding my then GFs family. I seriously think that she expected me to remember much of that. I did not, in fact, remember much of that.
Yes please I love hearing you talk history
If you like Philippa Gregory you'd love the well researched historical novels of Sharon Kay Penman. She wrote a series on the Plantagenet dynasty, though my absolute favourite are what's known as the Welsh trilogy. All her books have brilliant authors notes describing which details are fact and which details she has created or altered to aid the narrative. Its always surpising to discover just how much is true although you may be relieved to know that although children were married very young they were usually then brought up in the household of their betrothed until they were of a suitable age to consumate the marriage.
I reccomend starting with Here Be Dragons, the first in the Welsh trilogy, I discovered my copy in a second hand book store and it started my love of SKP's historical fiction although it wasnt the first book she wrote. Sadly she died unexpectedly a year or two ago so there will be no more, but she did manage to conclude her Plantagenet series.
Do hope you find them, i just know you'll love them.
Really enjoyed this video, Jessica, great research.👍😊
"Is it? Is it? It gets worse..." 😅😂
I can’t believe you found out so much about so many people! Good Job!
OMGGG IM OBSESSED WITH BRIDGERTON!! I cannot stop rewatching!!
i would love a part 2!!
This is so fascinating, Jessica! 😊 Yes, please do part 2. 😊
Please do a part 2. That was wild.
This feeds my fascination with genealogy and now I must do all the research. Thank you very much. I would love a sequel
Fascinating. Part two, please!
This was fascinating. Coinfusing, but interesting. I would be interested in a second part IF you are so inclined to share your family tree. I took a break from mine but I would love to get back into discovering my familyh's history. I have been thinking of doing a DNA search - this is the second ad for MyHeratige I have seen today. Thank you for exploring this and sharing.
It's so fascinating! Def want part 2. Your family is wild!
This is amazing! Would LOVE a part two
Jessica, this is better than Game of Thrones. Thank you.
Part 2 is highly anticipated!!!😮
I would love a Part 2 with your Scandinavian heritage! ❤🇸🇪
Wild ride! Looking forward to the sequel. 👑
I understood little of this. I'm glad to be invited to listen to this enthusiastic knowledge-sharing! Always a joy to watch your creative undertakings, Jessica
looking forward to part 2! having this much court drama in your family history is quite fascinating lol. can't wait to learn whether the scandinavian part of your blood is also blue. cuz the amount of royalty upon royalty upon royalty here... wow
A part 2 would be great
So much nobility in yours! Mine are all famers or a mystery and you can't go much futher then the 1700s because poor people were not written about.
5:55 I can confirm. Child marriage is pretty much alive. It's not uncommon for me to meet
That’s horrible
And important note is that in a lot of cases, while they were married very young - typically these marriages were not 'consummated' until parties were much older. These young marriages also typically only happened among the rich - because yay politics - most historical documentation shows that the average woman wouldn't be married until her late teens early twenties. But most documentation that we do have isn't of your average person but of rich ppl so... we know mostly about the really young marriages.
Yes for part 2! I got so invested!
I did some digging for my own family tree, but for few reasons - I come from poor family, my country didn't exist for more than 100 years, reading Polish from 18th and 19th century in cyryllic is a extreme sport even if I can read cyryllic and the records from one church were destroyed during WWII, I also used free sources - I could only get to birth records from 1740s (I got earlier names, but without records), I also don't know German to get a hold on other side of family. At least people that I could find got married at reasonable age, most were over 20, and in similar age group (I think the biggest difference was my great-granny married in 1934, it was 10 years and she and her husband despised each other, however she was chronically ill widow with two small kids and he had a house and a horse, she had barely any money, she had to marry someone. They somehow had two kids, but even my granny calls her father in stories 'drunkard and idiot' 😂). But also women in my family lived for long time, I mean, poor woman born in 1750 living 80 years? And she wasn't the only one. That can't be said for their husbands, but it's my family's curse for generations.
Fascinating! Definitely interested in a Part II. 👍
I love your explanation of everything 😂
Part 2 would be phenomenal! Fun fun fun!
My mom does genealogy, so I know I’m related to Laura Ingalls Wilder, a baby born on the Mayflower (the fathers first wife I believe), and a slave owner for a guy from my old Texas history class. That of course is not the best thing, but my cousins, who are twin brothers accidentally got named the guys two names.
I would love as many parts of this as possible! Absolutely fascinating