How many living descendants are there of Oliver Cromwell?

[r***@btinternet.com]

As a republican (though not a particularly virulent or obsessive one), I fell to musing over the
weekend while watching the Jubilee pageant on the Thames (for the boats, not the royals)
whether there are any living descendants of Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
albeit for only a relatively short period.

According to various websites, there are many. The following site

http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/cromwellcollection/genealogy/heredis/info.htm

says.....

"There are many people alive today who are directly descended from Oliver Cromwell, via his
son Henry and his daughters Bridget and Frances. Their descent has been thoroughly
researched and reconstructed down to the mid Victorian period. Thus so long as you can
trace your ancestry back as far as the 1860s, you should be able to see quite easily whether
or not you lock into one of the proven lines of descent from Cromwell."

I am aware for certain of only one, the Yorkshirewoman Katharine Worsley, the Duchess of
Kent (and of course her children), who was born at Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, North
Yorkshire, in 1933 . She is the 8x-great-granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell via one of his
daughters, the aforementioned Frances. Ironic, is it not, that she is the Queen's first cousin,
yet it was her ancestor who was responsible for the execution of HM's 9x-great-grandfather
in 1649? I wonder if they ever discuss it over afternoon tea!

Cromwell and his wife Elizabeth Bourchier had nine children of whom six survived to
adulthood but only three produced descendants.

I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list??? Personally, I wish I were
one but no such luck!


--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE

[Jeff]

On 04/06/2012 8:25 AM, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> As a republican (though not a particularly virulent or obsessive one), I fell to musing over the
> weekend while watching the Jubilee pageant on the Thames (for the boats, not the royals)
>
I know I'm wandering way OT but I also watched yesterday from here in
Vancouver via BBC. (I have much the same attitude to the monarchy as Roy.)

I have to say that I have never seen such a totally inept performance as
BBC's coverage.

[melanie chesnel]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote:
Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>

Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is the English term for a political community founded for the common good, a Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. Agreed in both cases the head of state is not a Monarch, but Cromwell's Commonwealth was not republican in my opinion and Cromwell was less than democratic.

regards
melanie chesnel

[Charles Ellson]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 23:05:31 -0700 (PDT), melanie chesnel
<***@ornamentation.fr> wrote:

>On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote:
> Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
>> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
>> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>>
>
>Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is the English term for a political community founded for the common good, a Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. Agreed in both cases the head of state is not a Monarch, but Cromwell's Commonwealth was not republican in my opinion and Cromwell was less than democratic.
>
It was England and Wales which were the Commonwealth not Britain.
Scotland was under varying degrees of occupation by Cromwell.

[Peter]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:01:11 +0100, Charles Ellson
<***@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 23:05:31 -0700 (PDT), melanie chesnel
><***@ornamentation.fr> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote:
>> Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
>>> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
>>> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>>>
>>
>>Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is the English term for a political community founded for the common good, a Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. Agreed in both cases the head of state is not a Monarch, but Cromwell's Commonwealth was not republican in my opinion and Cromwell was less than democratic.
>>
>It was England and Wales which were the Commonwealth not Britain.
>Scotland was under varying degrees of occupation by Cromwell.

Didn't Cromwell take umbrage with Ireland and have a go at invading
there?

--
Peter Thomas
Researching: Hone - Oxon & Glam; Samuel(s) - Swansea, Llanelly & Gower;
Thomas - Morriston & Clydach; Harris - Aberdare; Pope, Parker & Broome - Salop
Wain(e) - Cardiff.
(Reply to address is a spam trap - please reply to the group)

[knuttle]

On 6/5/2012 6:37 PM, Peter wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:01:11 +0100, Charles Ellson
> <***@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 23:05:31 -0700 (PDT), melanie chesnel
>> <***@ornamentation.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote:
>>> Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
>>>> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
>>>> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is the English term for a political community founded for the common good, a Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. Agreed in both cases the head of state is not a Monarch, but Cromwell's Commonwealth was not republican in my opinion and Cromwell was less than democratic.
>>>
>> It was England and Wales which were the Commonwealth not Britain.
>> Scotland was under varying degrees of occupation by Cromwell.
>
> Didn't Cromwell take umbrage with Ireland and have a go at invading
> there?
>

I would suspect there are quite a few living descendants as per
Wikipedia this was his family

Robert (1621–1639), died while away at school.
Oliver (1622–1644), died of typhoid fever while serving as a
Parliamentarian officer.
Bridget (1624-1662), married (1) Henry Ireton, (2) Charles Fleetwood.
Richard (1626–1712), his father's successor as Lord Protector.[17]
Henry (1628–1674), later Lord Deputy of Ireland.
Elizabeth (1629–1658), married John Claypole.
James (b. & d. 1632), died in infancy.
Mary (1637–1713), married Thomas Belasyse, 1st Earl Fauconberg.
Frances (1638–1720), married (1) Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick,
(2) Sir John Russell, 3rd Baronet.


There were about six that reached an age which they could have had
children. it has been 400 years or about 15 generations. That is a lot
of people.

[Charles Ellson]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:47:21 -0400, knuttle
<***@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 6/5/2012 6:37 PM, Peter wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:01:11 +0100, Charles Ellson
>> <***@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 23:05:31 -0700 (PDT), melanie chesnel
>>> <***@ornamentation.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote:
>>>> Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
>>>>> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
>>>>> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is the English term for a political community founded for the common good, a Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. Agreed in both cases the head of state is not a Monarch, but Cromwell's Commonwealth was not republican in my opinion and Cromwell was less than democratic.
>>>>
>>> It was England and Wales which were the Commonwealth not Britain.
>>> Scotland was under varying degrees of occupation by Cromwell.
>>
>> Didn't Cromwell take umbrage with Ireland and have a go at invading
>> there?
>>
Landed near Dublin in 1649 and did his own impression of Presidents
Assad and Gaddafi :-
http://www.irelandseye.com/aarticles/history/events/dates/cromwell.shtm

He visited Scotland the next year where there was already a bit of
local difficulty between the Covenanters (those against state
interference with the Church) and the government.
>
>I would suspect there are quite a few living descendants as per
>Wikipedia this was his family
>
> Robert (1621–1639), died while away at school.
> Oliver (1622–1644), died of typhoid fever while serving as a
>Parliamentarian officer.
> Bridget (1624-1662), married (1) Henry Ireton, (2) Charles Fleetwood.
> Richard (1626–1712), his father's successor as Lord Protector.[17]
> Henry (1628–1674), later Lord Deputy of Ireland.
> Elizabeth (1629–1658), married John Claypole.
> James (b. & d. 1632), died in infancy.
> Mary (1637–1713), married Thomas Belasyse, 1st Earl Fauconberg.
> Frances (1638–1720), married (1) Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick,
>(2) Sir John Russell, 3rd Baronet.
>
>
>There were about six that reached an age which they could have had
>children. it has been 400 years or about 15 generations. That is a lot
>of people.

[Brian Austin]

You have to be a bit careful about blanket acceptance of the stories of
Cromwell's massacres in Ireland. As I recall, about 10 years ago an Irish
writer (can't recall the name at the moment) researched the primary sources
and discovered that many of these stories were unsupported by contemporary
evidence. Cromwell, it seems, behaved in accordance with the rules of war at
the time which we may find a bit barbaric but we should not, of course judge
those times by modern standards. It also seems that many of the massacre
stories were invented by an Irish catholic priest in the mid 19th century.
Unfortunately these stories are ingrained in Irish psyche - did not Charlie
Haughey when Irish PM refuse to attend a meeting in a room in (I think) the
FO because there was a painting of Oliver Comwell on the wall.

Brian Austin
"Charles Ellson" <***@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:47:21 -0400, knuttle
> <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 6/5/2012 6:37 PM, Peter wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:01:11 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>> <***@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 23:05:31 -0700 (PDT), melanie chesnel
>>>> <***@ornamentation.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote:
>>>>> Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
>>>>>> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I,
>>>>>> making Britain a republic,
>>>>>> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is the
>>>>> English term for a political community founded for the common good, a
>>>>> Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of
>>>>> citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen
>>>>> directly or indirectly by them. Agreed in both cases the head of state
>>>>> is not a Monarch, but Cromwell's Commonwealth was not republican in my
>>>>> opinion and Cromwell was less than democratic.
>>>>>
>>>> It was England and Wales which were the Commonwealth not Britain.
>>>> Scotland was under varying degrees of occupation by Cromwell.
>>>
>>> Didn't Cromwell take umbrage with Ireland and have a go at invading
>>> there?
>>>
> Landed near Dublin in 1649 and did his own impression of Presidents
> Assad and Gaddafi :-
> http://www.irelandseye.com/aarticles/history/events/dates/cromwell.shtm
>
> He visited Scotland the next year where there was already a bit of
> local difficulty between the Covenanters (those against state
> interference with the Church) and the government.
>>
>>I would suspect there are quite a few living descendants as per
>>Wikipedia this was his family
>>
>> Robert (1621-1639), died while away at school.
>> Oliver (1622-1644), died of typhoid fever while serving as a
>>Parliamentarian officer.
>> Bridget (1624-1662), married (1) Henry Ireton, (2) Charles Fleetwood.
>> Richard (1626-1712), his father's successor as Lord Protector.[17]
>> Henry (1628-1674), later Lord Deputy of Ireland.
>> Elizabeth (1629-1658), married John Claypole.
>> James (b. & d. 1632), died in infancy.
>> Mary (1637-1713), married Thomas Belasyse, 1st Earl Fauconberg.
>> Frances (1638-1720), married (1) Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick,
>>(2) Sir John Russell, 3rd Baronet.
>>
>>
>>There were about six that reached an age which they could have had
>>children. it has been 400 years or about 15 generations. That is a lot
>>of people.

[CWatters]

On 06/06/2012 16:32, Brian Austin wrote:
> You have to be a bit careful about blanket acceptance of the stories of
> Cromwell's massacres in Ireland.

I was at his house in Ely today. Information posted up there mentions at
least two massacres in Ireland (I wasn't counting) but adds that these
were "normal" for the period and there were massacres carried out by
both sides.

[Graeme Wall]

On 29/07/2013 18:59, CWatters wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 16:32, Brian Austin wrote:
>> You have to be a bit careful about blanket acceptance of the stories of
>> Cromwell's massacres in Ireland.
>
> I was at his house in Ely today. Information posted up there mentions at
> least two massacres in Ireland (I wasn't counting) but adds that these
> were "normal" for the period and there were massacres carried out by
> both sides.
>

Cromwell, and his opponents, were still operating under the customs of
medieval siege warfare which allowed for the decimation of the defenders
of a besieged town when defeated. One of the problems is that
decimation is now interpreted as killing the majority.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

[e***@varneys.org.uk]

> On 06/06/2012 16:32, Brian Austin wrote:
> > You have to be a bit careful about blanket acceptance of the stories of
> > Cromwell's massacres in Ireland.
>
> I was at his house in Ely today. Information posted up there mentions at
> least two massacres in Ireland (I wasn't counting) but adds that these
> were "normal" for the period and there were massacres carried out by
> both sides.
>
There was a lot of it about - and the Irish were by no means blameless,
having a fine line is exterminating Protestants, man woman and child.
Remember
'like the wild Irish, I'll not think thee dead
Till I can play at football with thine head.'

Cromwell is blamed for a lot he didn't do, and a lot he had to do if he wasn't
to let anarchy rule. I've always thought of him as one of the good guys (Like
Henry VII) who has suffered a lot from media misrepresentation.
Charles (I) may have been better dressed, but he was a bad lot politically
and definitely needed taking in hand.
EVE
Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians
Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

[Brian Austin]

According to the Complete Peerage, neither the Fauconberg nor the Warwick
marriages produced children.

Brian Austin
"knuttle" <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jqm5q6$jq0$***@dont-email.me...
> On 6/5/2012 6:37 PM, Peter wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:01:11 +0100, Charles Ellson
>> <***@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 23:05:31 -0700 (PDT), melanie chesnel
>>> <***@ornamentation.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote:
>>>> Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
>>>>> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I,
>>>>> making Britain a republic,
>>>>> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is the
>>>> English term for a political community founded for the common good, a
>>>> Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of
>>>> citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen
>>>> directly or indirectly by them. Agreed in both cases the head of state
>>>> is not a Monarch, but Cromwell's Commonwealth was not republican in my
>>>> opinion and Cromwell was less than democratic.
>>>>
>>> It was England and Wales which were the Commonwealth not Britain.
>>> Scotland was under varying degrees of occupation by Cromwell.
>>
>> Didn't Cromwell take umbrage with Ireland and have a go at invading
>> there?
>>
>
> I would suspect there are quite a few living descendants as per Wikipedia
> this was his family
>
> Robert (1621–1639), died while away at school.
> Oliver (1622–1644), died of typhoid fever while serving as a
> Parliamentarian officer.
> Bridget (1624-1662), married (1) Henry Ireton, (2) Charles Fleetwood.
> Richard (1626–1712), his father's successor as Lord Protector.[17]
> Henry (1628–1674), later Lord Deputy of Ireland.
> Elizabeth (1629–1658), married John Claypole.
> James (b. & d. 1632), died in infancy.
> Mary (1637–1713), married Thomas Belasyse, 1st Earl Fauconberg.
> Frances (1638–1720), married (1) Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick, (2)
> Sir John Russell, 3rd Baronet.
>
>
> There were about six that reached an age which they could have had
> children. it has been 400 years or about 15 generations. That is a lot
> of people.

[r***@btinternet.com]

From: melanie chesnel <***@ornamentation.fr>

> On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote:
> Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
> > abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I,
> making Britain a republic,
> > albeit for only a relatively short period.
> >
>
> Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is
> the English term for a political community founded for the common
> good, a Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the
> body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by
> representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. Agreed in
> both cases the head of state is not a Monarch, but Cromwell's
> Commonwealth was not republican in my opinion and Cromwell was less
> than democratic.
>
> regards
> melanie chesnel>

It has long been my view that, as family historians, we could have had a system of civil
registration almost two centuries before we finally got it in 1837, had we not made the
supreme mistake of restoring the monarchy in 1660.

The worst thing Cromwell did (among many good things) was leave a vacuum after his
death, which his weakling of a son Richard was not fitted to fill and other factions quarrelled
so much that there was little choice left but to invite Charles II back.

While it's true that many parish registers were lost in the Civil War, Cromwell's regime saw
the introduction of an Act that said births had to be recorded rather than just baptisms and
deaths rather than burials. Also, from 1653 until the Restoration, marriage was virtually
removed from the hands of the clergy altogether and became a civil ceremony conducted by
a Justice of the Peace and recorded by a lay official called a Register (NOT registrar). Where
these records survive they are very good - I have some excellent examples from Kirkby
Malham in Yorkshire - and give considerably more detail than the usual scanty records we
are all familiar with.

--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE

[r***@btinternet.com]

From: ***@btinternet.com

> It has long been my view that, as family historians, we could have
> had a system of civil registration almost two centuries before we finally got it in 1837,
> had we not made the supreme mistake of restoring the monarchy in 1660.

snip.....

> While it's true that many parish registers were lost in the Civil
> War, Cromwell's regime saw the introduction of an Act that said births had to be recorded
> rather than just baptisms and deaths rather than burials. Also, from 1653 until the Restoration,
> marriage was virtually removed from the hands of the clergy altogether and became a civil
> ceremony conducted by a Justice of the Peace and recorded by a lay official called a
> Register (NOT registrar). Where these records survive they are very good - I have some excellent
> examples from Kirkby Malham in Yorkshire - and give considerably more detail than the
> usual scanty records we are all familiar with.>

For the aforementioned examples, see my feature for Your Family Tree magazine in 2005 on
the Kirkby Malham website at: http://kirkbymalham.info/KMI/malhamdale/yft29_cromwell.pdf

This article focused on a longstanding controversy over whether Oliver Cromwell officiated at
two weddings in the parish in 1655 and 1656. Cromwell's alleged signature appears in the
parish registers but most historians think they were forgeries - although why anyone in their
right mind would dare to forge the Lord Protector's signature in his lifetime is beyond me, and
what would be the point if they were inserted into the registers after his death?

The problem is that the registers were stolen from the church in the 1970s - possibly by a
collector because of the alleged signatures of Oliver Cromwell - and have never been seen
since. However, they had been copied and published in a book by a local historian and
antiquarian called John Morkill in 1933.

Here is an extract from one of the supposed marriages.....

"The. I.M: betweene John. Ellin of Malham & Anne Tayler of Hellifield
[pishe of] Long Preston was published three severall Markett dayes in the
Market. place att Settle 12th, 19th, 26th June. 1655. JE & AT was married
25th July in the presence of John Lawson of Malham & John Shackleton of the
same & others before me, Olyver Cromwell R." [I.M. = Intended Marriage]

I have a very personal interest in this record because JOHN SHACKLETON of Malham
township was my likely 8x-great grandfather and I would dearly love to think that he actually
met the Great Man, Oliver Cromwell and even enjoyed a knees-up at the reception
afterwards! However, two things are very suspicious about this record.....

1) Cromwell was not known to spell his name as "Olyver" and he was a literate and educated
man.

2) He NEVER used the initial "R" which was thought to mean "Rex" because, of course, he
always refused the title of King (unless the "R" stood for Register but in that case it would not
have applied to him but to the official who held that job). Cromwell normally signed himself as
"Oliver P" the "P" standing for "Protector".

One thing, however, is likely: that Cromwell probably did stay at Kirkby Malham in that period
because the Squire of Calton, one of the eight townships of the parish of Kirkby Malham, was
Major-General "Honest John" Lambert, a personal friend of Cromwell's and one of his
principal commanders during the Civil Wars. Could someone, knowing that he was in the
area, have taken the register to him to sign? However, it seems unlikely he would have made
two mistakes in so doing.

Even if I had no personal interest in these records, I would still find them fascinating because
of the evidence they reveal.....

1) That between 1653 and 1660 marriages were conducted by Justices of the Peace as a
civil ceremony.

2) Banns could be called in the market place (as they were in the above record, Settle being
the nearest market town) and not necessarily in a church.

--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE

[unknown]

In article <d6078dd3-8c03-47a7-aec3-***@googlegroups.com>, melanie
chesnel <***@ornamentation.fr> wrote:
>
> On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote:
> Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who=20
> > abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making
> B=
> ritain a republic,=20
> > albeit for only a relatively short period.
> >=20
>
> Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is the
> Engli=
> sh term for a political community founded for the common good, a Republic
> i=
> s a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens
> entitled=
> to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly
> =
> by them. Agreed in both cases the head of state is not a Monarch, but
> Cromw=
> ell's Commonwealth was not republican in my opinion and Cromwell was less
> t=
> han democratic.
>
> regards=20
> melanie chesnel

Cromwell was not a Republican what he opposed was the Monarch's power over
Parliment. His "battle", with others, was to show that the "people" (a loose
term given the limited "class" of persons that could vote for and sit in
Parliment) via Parliment had power and that the Monarch was not overall
ruler. Cromwell refused to take the position of Monarch or position of Head
of State. His "dictatorship" came later after Parliment "went astray".

The current situation is the result of Cromwell where the Monarch is a
figurehead only and has NO political power, the Monarch does not even have
the right to vote. This actually is a bit of a safeguard against a dictator
as any Prime Minister is subject to the Monarch (and swears allegiance to
the Monarch) and not the head of state which the Monarch is.

Many will argue whether Cromwell was "good" or "bad" but today's supremacy
of Parliment is his legacy.

Gordon


--
--. --. --. --. : : --- --- .---------------------------------------------.
|_| |_| | _ | | | | |_ | |Internet provider for all Acorn RISC machines|
| | |\ | | | | |\| | | '---------------------------------------------'
| | | \ |_| |_| | | |__ | ***@mapsonargonet.co.uk(please remove mapson for any reply)

[Renia]

On 05/06/2012 07:05, melanie chesnel wrote:
> On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote: Oliver
> Cromwell, my historical hero who
>> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I,
>> making Britain a republic, albeit for only a relatively short
>> period.
>>
>
> Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is the
> English term for a political community founded for the common good, a
> Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of
> citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen
> directly or indirectly by them. Agreed in both cases the head of
> state is not a Monarch, but Cromwell's Commonwealth was not
> republican in my opinion and Cromwell was less than democratic.

It might be your opinion, but Britain was a Republic for a while. Didn't
like it so brought back the monarchy.

[Charles Ellson]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 01:11:53 +0100, Renia <***@otenet.gr> wrote:

>On 05/06/2012 07:05, melanie chesnel wrote:
>> On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote: Oliver
>> Cromwell, my historical hero who
>>> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I,
>>> making Britain a republic, albeit for only a relatively short
>>> period.
>>>
>>
>> Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is the
>> English term for a political community founded for the common good, a
>> Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of
>> citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen
>> directly or indirectly by them. Agreed in both cases the head of
>> state is not a Monarch, but Cromwell's Commonwealth was not
>> republican in my opinion and Cromwell was less than democratic.
>
>It might be your opinion, but Britain was a Republic for a while. Didn't
>like it so brought back the monarchy.
>
There was no "Britain" (in the political sense) until 1707. England
and Scotland were separate states.

[Renia]

On 06/06/2012 02:50, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 01:11:53 +0100, Renia<***@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
>> On 05/06/2012 07:05, melanie chesnel wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote: Oliver
>>> Cromwell, my historical hero who
>>>> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I,
>>>> making Britain a republic, albeit for only a relatively short
>>>> period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is the
>>> English term for a political community founded for the common good, a
>>> Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of
>>> citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen
>>> directly or indirectly by them. Agreed in both cases the head of
>>> state is not a Monarch, but Cromwell's Commonwealth was not
>>> republican in my opinion and Cromwell was less than democratic.
>>
>> It might be your opinion, but Britain was a Republic for a while. Didn't
>> like it so brought back the monarchy.
>>
> There was no "Britain" (in the political sense) until 1707. England
> and Scotland were separate states.

Rightly pointed out. (Get too used to replacing "England" with "Britain"
these days that it's become a bit of a habit.)

[r***@btinternet.com]

From: Renia <***@otenet.gr>

> > Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is
> the English term for a political community founded for the common
> good, a Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body
> of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives
> chosen directly or indirectly by them. Agreed in both cases the head of
> > state is not a Monarch, but Cromwell's Commonwealth was not
> > republican in my opinion and Cromwell was less than democratic.
>
> It might be your opinion, but Britain was a Republic for a while.
> Didn't like it so brought back the monarchy.>

It wasn't a question of Britain "not liking it" because the ordinary people of the land had
nothing to do with the restoration of the monarchy. It happened because Richard Cromwell,
who succeeded his father as Lord Protector, was a mere shadow of the man has dad had
been and was unable to unite or keep down the various squabbling factions, especially the
prominent group of army officers who had little respect for him.

Anyway, if Cromwell's regime had not always been popular, it would be interesting to know
what Charles II's subjects thought of him when they had to cough up their taxes to keep his
string of mistresses and their illegitimate offspring in the manner to which they expected to
become accustomed! Let's not forget that we have Charles II to thank for the existence of
probably a quarter to a half the aristocracy of Britain and their excesses today.


--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE

[Lesley Robertson]

"Renia" wrote in message news:jqm78h$ion$***@speranza.aioe.org...

On 05/06/2012 07:05, melanie chesnel wrote:
> On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote: Oliver
> Cromwell, my historical hero who
>> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I,
>> making Britain a republic, albeit for only a relatively short
>> period.
>>
>
> Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is
> the
> English term for a political community founded for the common good,
> a
> Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of
> citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen
> directly or indirectly by them. Agreed in both cases the head of
> state is not a Monarch, but Cromwell's Commonwealth was not
> republican in my opinion and Cromwell was less than democratic.

It might be your opinion, but Britain was a Republic for a while.
Didn't
like it so brought back the monarchy.

***********

Not really, they changed the title but the House of Stuart was
replaced by the House of Cromwell. Both tended to be absolute rulers
whose kids inherited, both enforced their will on the people by armed
force.

Lesley Robertson

[Renia]

On 10/06/2012 15:05, Lesley Robertson wrote:
> "Renia" wrote in message news:jqm78h$ion$***@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> On 05/06/2012 07:05, melanie chesnel wrote:
>> On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote: Oliver
>> Cromwell, my historical hero who
>>> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I,
>>> making Britain a republic, albeit for only a relatively short
>>> period.
>>>
>>
>> Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is the
>> English term for a political community founded for the common good, a
>> Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of
>> citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen
>> directly or indirectly by them. Agreed in both cases the head of
>> state is not a Monarch, but Cromwell's Commonwealth was not
>> republican in my opinion and Cromwell was less than democratic.
>
> It might be your opinion, but Britain was a Republic for a while. Didn't
> like it so brought back the monarchy.
>
> ***********
>
> Not really, they changed the title but the House of Stuart was replaced
> by the House of Cromwell. Both tended to be absolute rulers whose kids
> inherited, both enforced their will on the people by armed force.

The absolute monarchies of the early Stuarts ended with Charles I losing
his head. Along came Cromwell who deliberated the offer of the crown,
but refused to accept the title of King. His son, Richard, was a waste
of space, so back came the later Stuarts. After 20 years of wandering,
Charles II sought to keep his head. He brought back fun and games and
merriment, for his own pleasure and to keep the side of the people. In
effect, he founded our Constitutional Monarchy.

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

On 10 Jun at 20:49, Renia <***@otenet.gr> wrote:

<snip for brevity>

> The absolute monarchies of the early Stuarts ended with Charles I
> losing his head. Along came Cromwell who deliberated the offer of the
> crown, but refused to accept the title of King. His son, Richard, was
> a waste of space, so back came the later Stuarts. After 20 years of
> wandering, Charles II sought to keep his head. He brought back fun and
> games and merriment, for his own pleasure and to keep the side of the
> people. In effect, he founded our Constitutional Monarchy.

An alternative and IMHO more credible interpretation is that Parliament
founded the Constitutional Monarchy, though perhaps its origin was as
long ago as 1215 with the Magna Carta. Charles I was idiot enough to
try to overthrow that and Charles II realised that the invitation from
Parliament was just that and all subsequent changes of monarchies were
done at Parliament express invitation. Three cheers for the
Commonwealth for firmly re-establishing that Parliament was Sovereign.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

[Renia]

On 11/06/2012 20:49, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
> On 10 Jun at 20:49, Renia<***@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
> <snip for brevity>
>
>> The absolute monarchies of the early Stuarts ended with Charles I
>> losing his head. Along came Cromwell who deliberated the offer of the
>> crown, but refused to accept the title of King. His son, Richard, was
>> a waste of space, so back came the later Stuarts. After 20 years of
>> wandering, Charles II sought to keep his head. He brought back fun and
>> games and merriment, for his own pleasure and to keep the side of the
>> people. In effect, he founded our Constitutional Monarchy.
>
> An alternative and IMHO more credible interpretation is that Parliament
> founded the Constitutional Monarchy, though perhaps its origin was as
> long ago as 1215 with the Magna Carta. Charles I was idiot enough to
> try to overthrow that and Charles II realised that the invitation from
> Parliament was just that and all subsequent changes of monarchies were
> done at Parliament express invitation. Three cheers for the
> Commonwealth for firmly re-establishing that Parliament was Sovereign.


Yes, there have been key stages in our development as a Constitutional
Monarchy, and I would agree that Magna Carta is one of them.

[Piercefield]

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote, Monday, June 11, 2012 8:49 PM

> all subsequent changes of monarchies were
> done at Parliament express invitation.

... and (in theory) vice versa, of course !

> Three cheers for the Commonwealth for firmly
> re-establishing that Parliament was Sovereign.

... and I though the Sovereign was - erm - sovereign !

Time was that power was split in three - Commons, Lords and Monarch,
and the Ministers were the monarch's Ministers. At least then there
were more checks on Power.

I guess the American system is more like that than our current system
is.

Without such checks you get "systems" like Zimbabwe...

[Renia]

On 12/06/2012 08:10, Piercefield wrote:
> Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote, Monday, June 11, 2012 8:49 PM
>
>> all subsequent changes of monarchies were
>> done at Parliament express invitation.
>
> ... and (in theory) vice versa, of course !
>
>> Three cheers for the Commonwealth for firmly
>> re-establishing that Parliament was Sovereign.
>
> ... and I though the Sovereign was - erm - sovereign !
>
> Time was that power was split in three - Commons, Lords and Monarch,
> and the Ministers were the monarch's Ministers. At least then there
> were more checks on Power.


Our Constitutional Monarchy is still comprised of three-way checks and
balances between the Sovereign, Parliament and the Judiciary. Or at
least, it was, until Tony Blair got his hands on it and reduced the
power of the judiciary and acted without his Cabinet. That's why his
Government was so dangerous. It ate away at our Constitution and was
creeping towards totalitarianism. The problem for The Queen was, and is,
that as one of those three checks, she should have stepped in when Blair
began to tip the balance. Her "men in suits" obviously didn't understand
how our constitution worked and left her Constitutionally impotent.

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

On 12 Jun at 8:10, "Piercefield" <***@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote, Monday, June 11, 2012 8:49 PM
>
> > all subsequent changes of monarchies were done at Parliament express
> > invitation.
>
> ... and (in theory) vice versa, of course !
>
> > Three cheers for the Commonwealth for firmly re-establishing that
> > Parliament was Sovereign.
>
> ... and I though the Sovereign was - erm - sovereign !

At least she is a sovereign but otherwise, where have you been all your
life?

> Time was that power was split in three - Commons, Lords and Monarch,
> and the Ministers were the monarch's Ministers.

That was merely an interpretation which was then taken to be the law of
God by the writers of the Yank constitution. Similar to the Law that
Gad is an Englishman and that Latin was his tongue.

> At least then there were more checks on Power.
>
> I guess the American system is more like that than our current system
> is.

You are very alert. But they still get huffy about the fact that the
Presidents manage to go to war with little or no constraint, the
Presidents being fairly powerless to do anything else much.

> Without such checks you get "systems" like Zimbabwe...

Or are they not a bit like we used to be a few centuries ago. It takes
an awful long time for a country to learn the ways of democracy. I like
to think the asset of Britain is that, by and large, we have learnt
those ways; certainly that is why I decided to remain here some fifty
years ago.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

[Piercefield]

Renia wrote, Sunday, June 10, 2012 8:49 PM

> Charles II ... In effect, he founded our Constitutional Monarchy.

Pah !

And there was me, thinking it was all about the Bill of Rights, 1688,
WilliamandMary, etc...

Damn.

Back to the drawing board...

[Ian Goddard]

Piercefield wrote:
> Renia wrote, Sunday, June 10, 2012 8:49 PM
>
>> Charles II ... In effect, he founded our Constitutional Monarchy.
>
> Pah !
>
> And there was me, thinking it was all about the Bill of Rights, 1688,
> WilliamandMary, etc...

And etc included skipping over goodness knows how many others to
/choose/ Geo. I.

--
Ian

The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk

[Ruth Wilson]

On 12/06/2012 10:25, Ian Goddard wrote:
> Piercefield wrote:
>> Renia wrote, Sunday, June 10, 2012 8:49 PM
>>
>>> Charles II ... In effect, he founded our Constitutional Monarchy.
>>
>> Pah !
>>
>> And there was me, thinking it was all about the Bill of Rights, 1688,
>> WilliamandMary, etc...
>
> And etc included skipping over goodness knows how many others to
> /choose/ Geo. I.
>

Surprisingly, to me (who thought I knew quite a bit!), they skipped over
57 (fifty seven!!!), according to "Things we forgot to remember" on R4
last night!

Ruth (off to look up a Stuart/Hanoverian family tree ...)

[CWatters]

On 05/06/2012 07:05, melanie chesnel wrote:
> On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote:
> Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
>> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
>> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>>
>
> Commonwealth - Britain has never been a Republic. Commonwealth is the English term for a political community founded for the common good, a Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. Agreed in both cases the head of state is not a Monarch, but Cromwell's Commonwealth was not republican in my opinion and Cromwell was less than democratic.
>
> regards
> melanie chesnel
>

I was at his house in Ely today. Pretty sure the signs there say it was
"briefly a Republic" of something like that.

[Charani]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:25:04 +0100, ***@btinternet.com
wrote:

> I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list???

Not me, thank goodness!!

There were names that appear in various family lines but they were the
common ones like LEWIS, of which I have three distinct but unrelated
lines.

--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??

[m***@yahoo.co.uk]

Am Montag, 4. Juni 2012 18:25:04 UTC+3 schrieb (unbekannt):
> As a republican (though not a particularly virulent or obsessive one), I fell to musing over the
> weekend while watching the Jubilee pageant on the Thames (for the boats, not the royals)
> whether there are any living descendants of Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>
> According to various websites, there are many. The following site
>
> http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/cromwellcollection/genealogy/heredis/info.htm
>
> says.....
>
> "There are many people alive today who are directly descended from Oliver Cromwell, via his
> son Henry and his daughters Bridget and Frances. Their descent has been thoroughly
> researched and reconstructed down to the mid Victorian period. Thus so long as you can
> trace your ancestry back as far as the 1860s, you should be able to see quite easily whether
> or not you lock into one of the proven lines of descent from Cromwell."
>
> I am aware for certain of only one, the Yorkshirewoman Katharine Worsley, the Duchess of
> Kent (and of course her children), who was born at Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, North
> Yorkshire, in 1933 . She is the 8x-great-granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell via one of his
> daughters, the aforementioned Frances. Ironic, is it not, that she is the Queen's first cousin,
> yet it was her ancestor who was responsible for the execution of HM's 9x-great-grandfather
> in 1649? I wonder if they ever discuss it over afternoon tea!
>
> Cromwell and his wife Elizabeth Bourchier had nine children of whom six survived to
> adulthood but only three produced descendants.
>
> I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list??? Personally, I wish I were
> one but no such luck!
>
>
> --
> Roy Stockdill
> Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
> Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
>
> "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
> and that is not being talked about."
> OSCAR WILDE

I recall that one of the episodes of the TV series 'So You Think You're Royal' successfully traced a woman's ancestry back to various medieval royals, but found in passing that she was descended from Oliver Cromwell, too; the woman in question happened to be the sister of actor Jerome Flynn.

It looks as though Cromwell's progeny is fairly widespread among the aristocracy, with quite a few earls etc. being descended from him. It may be hard to find descendants who don't also have royal ancestry!

[m***@sailors-society.org]

Yes that woman was Kerry Crellin, my neice. I am a direct descendant of Crowell. After a few générations the male line died out and a daughter was the heiress. She had several daughters, one of which married into the Warner family through my great-great grandfather. If someone claims to have the surname Cromwell and to be a DIRECT descendant of Cromwell, they are mistaken. Revd Mark Ashton Warner, ***@yahoo.co.uk

[u***@gmail.com]

My 13th great grandfather was Henry Cromwell, uncle to Oliver Cromwell. The surname is actually from Katherine Cromwell. She married Morgan ap William of Wales but their descendants carried her maiden name rather than the Williams surname.

[u***@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 1:18:45 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> My 13th great grandfather was Henry Cromwell, uncle to Oliver Cromwell. The surname is actually from Katherine Cromwell. She married Morgan ap William of Wales but their descendants carried her maiden name rather than the Williams surname.

Katherine Cromwell and Morgan ap Williams are my 15th great grandparents and the great grandparents of Oliver Cromwell.

[u***@gmail.com]

My 13th great grandfather was Henry Cromwell, uncle to Oliver Cromwell. The surname is actually from Katherine Cromwell. She married Morgan ap William of Wales but their descendants carried her maiden name rather than the Williams surname.

[u***@gmail.com]

My 13th great grandfather was Henry Cromwell, uncle to Oliver Cromwell. The surname is actually from Katherine Cromwell. She married Morgan ap William of Wales but their descendants carried her maiden name rather than the Williams surname.

[u***@gmail.com]

My 13th great grandfather was Henry Cromwell, uncle to Oliver Cromwell. The surname is actually from Katherine Cromwell. She married Morgan ap William of Wales but their descendants carried her maiden name rather than the Williams surname.

[u***@gmail.com]

My 13th great grandfather was Henry Cromwell, uncle to Oliver Cromwell. The surname is actually from Katherine Cromwell. She married Morgan ap William of Wales but their descendants carried her maiden name rather than the Williams surname.

[u***@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:30:09 AM UTC-4, ***@sailors-society.org wrote:
> Yes that woman was Kerry Crellin, my neice. I am a direct descendant of Crowell. After a few générations the male line died out and a daughter was the heiress. She had several daughters, one of which married into the Warner family through my great-great grandfather. If someone claims to have the surname Cromwell and to be a DIRECT descendant of Cromwell, they are mistaken. Revd Mark Ashton Warner, ***@yahoo.co.uk


Was this daughter Margaret Cromwell, born in Culpepper, VA, who married William Addington, from London, England? She was my 6th great grandmother, her son Charles Cromwell Addington is, of course, my 5th great grandfather. I don't know of any Warners in my family. The family has kept the genealogical records very well have done strict research to publish a few books, some of which i've borrowed from my grandfather to use in my own research. One of them is The Addingtons of Virginia: the Descendants of Charles Cromwell Addington.

[c***@gmail.com]

I am Lord Oliver’s Great x10 Grandson

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2018-07-19 16:00:04 +0000, ***@gmail.com said:

> I am Lord Oliver’s Great x10 Grandson

That seems surprising for a Carolina.

Cromwell was Lord Protector, but he wasn't a Lord as the word is
usually understood.


--
athel

[z***@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 19 July 2018 18:00:05 UTC+2, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> I am Lord Oliver’s Great x10 Grandson

Can you share a Gedcom.

I am struggling to trace American descendants of Oliver Cromwell

[Jenny M Benson]

On 04/06/2012 16:25, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list??? Personally, I wish I were
> one but no such luck!

Not one myself (so far as I know) but when we were children my cousins
had friends, one of whose parents was said to be descended and the male
child was named Olver Cromwell P_____.

--
Jenny M Benson

[m***@yahoo.co.uk]

As far as I understand there are no direct descendants of Olover Cromwell who have the surname Cromwell. The male line of succession died out after 5 generations with a daughter who was the heiress. She had several daughters, of which one married my great, great granfather, who was a Warner.

So I am a direct descendant. My sister Fern Flynn is a direct descendant as are her children including Jerome Flynn (as mentioned in one of the posts). On the So You Think You're Royal programme on Sky, they used our photos and photos of portraits hich illustrates the line of descent.

Amazingly, Jerome's brother, Daniel Flynn recently played one of Cromwell's generals in the play 55 days at the Hampstead Theatre Club. An excellent play showing the dilemmas thaqt faced Cromell whilst inaugurating the idea of parliament alone being sovereign but having a constitutional 'monarch'.
Mark Ashton WARNER

On Monday, 4 June 2012 16:25:04 UTC+1, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> As a republican (though not a particularly virulent or obsessive one), I fell to musing over the
>
> weekend while watching the Jubilee pageant on the Thames (for the boats, not the royals)
>
> whether there are any living descendants of Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
>
> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
>
> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>
>
>
> According to various websites, there are many. The following site
>
>
>
> http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/cromwellcollection/genealogy/heredis/info.htm
>
>
>
> says.....
>
>
>
> "There are many people alive today who are directly descended from Oliver Cromwell, via his
>
> son Henry and his daughters Bridget and Frances. Their descent has been thoroughly
>
> researched and reconstructed down to the mid Victorian period. Thus so long as you can
>
> trace your ancestry back as far as the 1860s, you should be able to see quite easily whether
>
> or not you lock into one of the proven lines of descent from Cromwell."
>
>
>
> I am aware for certain of only one, the Yorkshirewoman Katharine Worsley, the Duchess of
>
> Kent (and of course her children), who was born at Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, North
>
> Yorkshire, in 1933 . She is the 8x-great-granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell via one of his
>
> daughters, the aforementioned Frances. Ironic, is it not, that she is the Queen's first cousin,
>
> yet it was her ancestor who was responsible for the execution of HM's 9x-great-grandfather
>
> in 1649? I wonder if they ever discuss it over afternoon tea!
>
>
>
> Cromwell and his wife Elizabeth Bourchier had nine children of whom six survived to
>
> adulthood but only three produced descendants.
>
>
>
> I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list??? Personally, I wish I were
>
> one but no such luck!
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Roy Stockdill
>
> Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
>
> Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
>
>
>
> "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
>
> and that is not being talked about."
>
> OSCAR WILDE

[r***@btinternet.com]

Date sent: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 06:20:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: How many living descendants are there of Oliver Cromwell?
From: ***@yahoo.co.uk
To: ***@googlegroups.com
Copies to: ***@rootsweb.com, ***@rootsweb.com

> As far as I understand there are no direct descendants of Olover
> Cromwell who have the surname Cromwell. The male line of succession
> died out after 5 generations with a daughter who was the heiress.
> She had several daughters, of which one married my great, great
> granfather, who was a Warner.
>
> So I am a direct descendant. My sister Fern Flynn is a direct
> descendant as are her children including Jerome Flynn (as mentioned
> in one of the posts). On the So You Think You're Royal programme on
> Sky, they used our photos and photos of portraits hich illustrates
> the line of descent.
>
> Amazingly, Jerome's brother, Daniel Flynn recently played one of
> Cromwell's generals in the play 55 days at the Hampstead Theatre
> Club. An excellent play showing the dilemmas thaqt faced Cromell
> whilst inaugurating the idea of parliament alone being sovereign but
> having a constitutional 'monarch'.
> Mark Ashton WARNER>

Thanks for that, Mark. Most interesting.

Which Cromwell daughter do you descend from? I seem to recall from what I read that there
were only two who had descendants and there was also a son, Henry.


--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE

[r***@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 6, 2012 8:20:03 AM UTC-6, ***@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> As far as I understand there are no direct descendants of Olover Cromwell who have the surname Cromwell. The male line of succession died out after 5 generations with a daughter who was the heiress. She had several daughters, of which one married my great, great granfather, who was a Warner. So I am a direct descendant. My sister Fern Flynn is a direct descendant as are her children including Jerome Flynn (as mentioned in one of the posts). On the So You Think You're Royal programme on Sky, they used our photos and photos of portraits hich illustrates the line of descent. Amazingly, Jerome's brother, Daniel Flynn recently played one of Cromwell's generals in the play 55 days at the Hampstead Theatre Club. An excellent play showing the dilemmas thaqt faced Cromell whilst inaugurating the idea of parliament alone being sovereign but having a constitutional 'monarch'. Mark Ashton WARNER On Monday, 4 June 2012 16:25:04 UTC+1, ***@btinternet.com wrote: > As a republican (though not a particularly virulent or obsessive one), I fell to musing over the > > weekend while watching the Jubilee pageant on the Thames (for the boats, not the royals) > > whether there are any living descendants of Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who > > abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic, > > albeit for only a relatively short period. > > > > According to various websites, there are many. The following site > > > > http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/cromwellcollection/genealogy/heredis/info.htm > > > > says..... > > > > "There are many people alive today who are directly descended from Oliver Cromwell, via his > > son Henry and his daughters Bridget and Frances. Their descent has been thoroughly > > researched and reconstructed down to the mid Victorian period. Thus so long as you can > > trace your ancestry back as far as the 1860s, you should be able to see quite easily whether > > or not you lock into one of the proven lines of descent from Cromwell." > > > > I am aware for certain of only one, the Yorkshirewoman Katharine Worsley, the Duchess of > > Kent (and of course her children), who was born at Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, North > > Yorkshire, in 1933 . She is the 8x-great-granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell via one of his > > daughters, the aforementioned Frances. Ironic, is it not, that she is the Queen's first cousin, > > yet it was her ancestor who was responsible for the execution of HM's 9x-great-grandfather > > in 1649? I wonder if they ever discuss it over afternoon tea! > > > > Cromwell and his wife Elizabeth Bourchier had nine children of whom six survived to > > adulthood but only three produced descendants. > > > > I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list??? Personally, I wish I were > > one but no such luck! > > > > > > -- > > Roy Stockdill > > Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer > > Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html > > > > "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, > > and that is not being talked about." > > OSCAR WILDE

I am a descendant of Oliver Cromwell and I reside in Texas. A framed picture of the coat-of-arms hangs on my bedroom wall. My great-grandfather Herbert E. Cromwell was born in 1906 and is buried in Brenham, Texas. He had only daughters so as they married the surname was lost. However, I am not sure of which I am a descendant from Henry, Frances, or Bridget.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=97301401

[William]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 10:25:04 AM UTC-5, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> As a republican (though not a particularly virulent or obsessive one), I fell to musing over the
>
> weekend while watching the Jubilee pageant on the Thames (for the boats, not the royals)
>
> whether there are any living descendants of Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
>
> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
>
> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>
>
>
> According to various websites, there are many. The following site
>
>
>
> http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/cromwellcollection/genealogy/heredis/info.htm
>
>
>
> says.....
>
>
>
> "There are many people alive today who are directly descended from Oliver Cromwell, via his
>
> son Henry and his daughters Bridget and Frances. Their descent has been thoroughly
>
> researched and reconstructed down to the mid Victorian period. Thus so long as you can
>
> trace your ancestry back as far as the 1860s, you should be able to see quite easily whether
>
> or not you lock into one of the proven lines of descent from Cromwell."
>
>
>
> I am aware for certain of only one, the Yorkshirewoman Katharine Worsley, the Duchess of
>
> Kent (and of course her children), who was born at Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, North
>
> Yorkshire, in 1933 . She is the 8x-great-granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell via one of his
>
> daughters, the aforementioned Frances. Ironic, is it not, that she is the Queen's first cousin,
>
> yet it was her ancestor who was responsible for the execution of HM's 9x-great-grandfather
>
> in 1649? I wonder if they ever discuss it over afternoon tea!
>
>
>
> Cromwell and his wife Elizabeth Bourchier had nine children of whom six survived to
>
> adulthood but only three produced descendants.
>
>
>
> I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list??? Personally, I wish I were
>
> one but no such luck!
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Roy Stockdill
>
> Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
>
> Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
>
>
>
> "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
>
> and that is not being talked about."
>
> OSCAR WILDE

I'm a descendant of his line. Not sure if I'm direct, I think I came from one of his siblings, I need to check again (my family has the documentation.) I don't know why you would want to be his descendant, it's cool, but it doesn't really benefit me at all. ;)

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

On 22 Jul at 21:06, William <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, June 4, 2012 10:25:04 AM UTC-5, ***@btinternet.com
> wrote:

<snip for brevity>

> > I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list???
> > Personally, I wish I were one but no such luck!
> >
> > --
> >
> > Roy Stockdill

> I'm a descendant of his line. Not sure if I'm direct, I think I came
> from one of his siblings, I need to check again (my family has the
> documentation.) I don't know why you would want to be his descendant,
> it's cool, but it doesn't really benefit me at all. ;)

I share your relationship to Cromwell's line but, like Roy, I would like
to be his descendant. Cromwell brought order out of chaos. While he
was a butcher in Ireland, in other respects he was moderate and
tolerant. He did not have time for the many fanatics that were around
and struggled with the problem of how to install a non-monarchical
government that could survive. He may have failed in his lifetime but
his legacy lives on in the dictum that 'Parliament is Sovereign' and
decides both laws and monarchs.

Read his writings and the biographies of him and perhaps you will
understand why he is held in such respect.

"Paint me as I am, warts and all" - O. Cromwell.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

[Charles Ellson]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:29:52 +0100, Tim Powys-Lybbe <***@powys.org>
wrote:

>On 22 Jul at 21:06, William <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, June 4, 2012 10:25:04 AM UTC-5, ***@btinternet.com
>> wrote:
>
><snip for brevity>
>
>> > I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list???
>> > Personally, I wish I were one but no such luck!
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Roy Stockdill
>
>> I'm a descendant of his line. Not sure if I'm direct, I think I came
>> from one of his siblings, I need to check again (my family has the
>> documentation.) I don't know why you would want to be his descendant,
>> it's cool, but it doesn't really benefit me at all. ;)
>
>I share your relationship to Cromwell's line but, like Roy, I would like
>to be his descendant. Cromwell brought order out of chaos.
>
So did an assortment of other well-known undesirables.

>While he
>was a butcher in Ireland, in other respects he was moderate and
>tolerant. He did not have time for the many fanatics that were around
>and struggled with the problem of how to install a non-monarchical
>government that could survive. He may have failed in his lifetime but
>his legacy lives on in the dictum that 'Parliament is Sovereign' and
>decides both laws and monarchs.
>
Something disproved on various occasions in court.

>Read his writings and the biographies of him and perhaps you will
>understand why he is held in such respect.
>
>"Paint me as I am, warts and all" - O. Cromwell.

[Brian Austin]

A few years back, a well known Irish writer (whose name I have sadly
forgotten) researched the primary sources around the so-called massacres and
discovered that Cromwell adhered strictly to the rules of war as then
extant. The stories that now circulate were, apparently, an invention of a
19th century Catholic priest. The late politician Charles Haughey once
refused to attend a meeting in the British Foreign Office because there was
a portrait of Cromwell "that murderer" on the wall. Which shows how ignorant
he was or more likely, a typical politician.

Brian Austin
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <***@powys.org> wrote in message
news:***@powys.org...
> On 22 Jul at 21:06, William <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, June 4, 2012 10:25:04 AM UTC-5, ***@btinternet.com
>> wrote:
>
> <snip for brevity>
>
>> > I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list???
>> > Personally, I wish I were one but no such luck!
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Roy Stockdill
>
>> I'm a descendant of his line. Not sure if I'm direct, I think I came
>> from one of his siblings, I need to check again (my family has the
>> documentation.) I don't know why you would want to be his descendant,
>> it's cool, but it doesn't really benefit me at all. ;)
>
> I share your relationship to Cromwell's line but, like Roy, I would like
> to be his descendant. Cromwell brought order out of chaos. While he
> was a butcher in Ireland, in other respects he was moderate and
> tolerant. He did not have time for the many fanatics that were around
> and struggled with the problem of how to install a non-monarchical
> government that could survive. He may have failed in his lifetime but
> his legacy lives on in the dictum that 'Parliament is Sovereign' and
> decides both laws and monarchs.
>
> Read his writings and the biographies of him and perhaps you will
> understand why he is held in such respect.
>
> "Paint me as I am, warts and all" - O. Cromwell.
>
> --
> Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
> for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

[r***@btinternet.com]

From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <***@powys.org>

> I share your relationship to Cromwell's line but, like Roy, I would like
> to be his descendant. Cromwell brought order out of chaos. While he
> was a butcher in Ireland, in other respects he was moderate and
> tolerant. He did not have time for the many fanatics that were around
> and struggled with the problem of how to install a non-monarchical
> government that could survive. He may have failed in his lifetime but
> his legacy lives on in the dictum that 'Parliament is Sovereign' and
> decides both laws and monarchs.
>
> Read his writings and the biographies of him and perhaps you will
> understand why he is held in such respect.
>
> "Paint me as I am, warts and all" - O. Cromwell.
>
> --
> Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
> for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/>

I agree with Tim. Oliver Cromwell was a great man of his time and much
misunderstood and maligned.

Apart from the things Tim mentions, Cromwell came from literally nowhere, an
obscure country squire with no real military background or experience, to found
the first fully professional army in British history, the New Model Army, which
was the origins of the British Army as we know it today. Without the dedication
and foresight of Cromwell, Charles I and his Royalists would probably have won
the Civil War and the absolute rule of tyrannical monarchy would have lasted
much longer than it did.

Cromwell, as I said, was a man of his time - and people's actions can only ever
be judged by the social mores and standards that existed at the time, not with
the advantage of hindsight and a mindset of modern values. The suppression of
Ireland had begun long before Cromwell came on the scene.

--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE

[Chris Westmoreland]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: genbrit-***@rootsweb.com [mailto:genbrit-
> ***@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of ***@btinternet.com
> Sent: 31 July 2013 10:58
> To: ***@rootsweb.com; Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Subject: Re: How many living descendants are there of Oliver Cromwell?
>
> From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <***@powys.org>
>
> > I share your relationship to Cromwell's line but, like Roy, I would
> > like to be his descendant. Cromwell brought order out of chaos.
> > While he was a butcher in Ireland, in other respects he was moderate
> > and tolerant. He did not have time for the many fanatics that were
> > around and struggled with the problem of how to install a
> > non-monarchical government that could survive. He may have failed in
> > his lifetime but his legacy lives on in the dictum that 'Parliament is
> > Sovereign' and decides both laws and monarchs.
> >
> > Read his writings and the biographies of him and perhaps you will
> > understand why he is held in such respect.
> >
> > "Paint me as I am, warts and all" - O. Cromwell.
> >
> > --
> > Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
> > for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/>
>
> I agree with Tim. Oliver Cromwell was a great man of his time and much
> misunderstood and maligned.
>
> Apart from the things Tim mentions, Cromwell came from literally nowhere,
> an obscure country squire with no real military background or experience,
to
> found the first fully professional army in British history, the New Model
> Army, which was the origins of the British Army as we know it today.
Without
> the dedication and foresight of Cromwell, Charles I and his Royalists
would
> probably have won the Civil War and the absolute rule of tyrannical
> monarchy would have lasted much longer than it did.
>
> Cromwell, as I said, was a man of his time - and people's actions can only
ever
> be judged by the social mores and standards that existed at the time, not
> with the advantage of hindsight and a mindset of modern values. The
> suppression of Ireland had begun long before Cromwell came on the scene.
>
> --
> Roy Stockdill
> Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
> Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/
>

I also agree with Tim and Roy that Oliver Cromwell has been misunderstood
and that he fought the Irish campaign by the tenets of his day.

However, he didn't found the New Model Army; this was set up by Parliament
under the command of Black Tom Fairfax of Nun Appleton with Cromwell as
Lieutenant-General of Cavalry and subordinate to Fairfax. This was the
situation throughout the English Civil war. In 1650, when the Scots declared
for Charles II, Parliament decided to send an army to Scotland to prevent
the Scots invading England. Fairfax disagreed with this decision and
resigned his commission. Cromwell was appointed as his successor. Fairfax
was widely regarded as a man of great integrity and was instrumental in the
restoration of the monarchy in 1660.

--
Kushti bok,
Chris Westmoreland

[j***@gmail.com]

I'm a descendant of Cromwell. He is my 9x great grandfather through his son Henry, his son Henry, his son Thomas, his daughter Anne, her son William, his son Alfred, his daughter rosa, her son Edwin Cromwell, his daughter (my grandmother) Valery and my dad Matthew. Our family tree also goes upwards to Morgan Williams who married Thomas cromwell's sister..

[d***@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 at 9:25:04 AM UTC-6, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> As a republican (though not a particularly virulent or obsessive one), I fell to musing over the
> weekend while watching the Jubilee pageant on the Thames (for the boats, not the royals)
> whether there are any living descendants of Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>
> According to various websites, there are many. The following site
>
> http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/cromwellcollection/genealogy/heredis/info.htm
>
> says.....
>
> "There are many people alive today who are directly descended from Oliver Cromwell, via his
> son Henry and his daughters Bridget and Frances. Their descent has been thoroughly
> researched and reconstructed down to the mid Victorian period. Thus so long as you can
> trace your ancestry back as far as the 1860s, you should be able to see quite easily whether
> or not you lock into one of the proven lines of descent from Cromwell."
>
> I am aware for certain of only one, the Yorkshirewoman Katharine Worsley, the Duchess of
> Kent (and of course her children), who was born at Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, North
> Yorkshire, in 1933 . She is the 8x-great-granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell via one of his
> daughters, the aforementioned Frances. Ironic, is it not, that she is the Queen's first cousin,
> yet it was her ancestor who was responsible for the execution of HM's 9x-great-grandfather
> in 1649? I wonder if they ever discuss it over afternoon tea!
>
> Cromwell and his wife Elizabeth Bourchier had nine children of whom six survived to
> adulthood but only three produced descendants.
>
> I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list??? Personally, I wish I were
> one but no such luck!
>
>
> --
> Roy Stockdill
> Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
> Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
>
> "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
> and that is not being talked about."
> OSCAR WILDE

Thought I'd leave my 2 cents. I'm a living descendant of Oliver Cromwell. He's my 12th great grandfather.

[u***@gmail.com]

I cannot find a way to edit posts... so i've deleted mine earlier due to a mistake...

Anyway, just came across these posts while researching and wanted to add...

Oliver Cromwell's brother Sir Phillip Cromwell was my 12th great grandfather. The last male in my family to have that surname was Captain William Lewis Cromwell, my 7th great grandfather. His daughter Margaret Cromwell married William Addington and they named a son Charles Cromwell Addington, my 5th great grandfather.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2015-09-21 06:09:47 +0000, ***@gmail.com said:

> I cannot find a way to edit posts... so i've deleted mine earlier due
> to a mistake...
>
> Anyway, just came across these posts while researching and wanted to add...
> Oliver Cromwell's brother Sir Phillip Cromwell was my 12th great
> grandfather. The last male in my family to have that surname was
> Captain William Lewis Cromwell, my 7th great grandfather. His daughter
> Margaret Cromwell married William Addington and they named a son
> Charles Cromwell Addington, my 5th great grandfather.

After so many generations there must be millions of living descendants.
As far as I know I'm not among them, but I wouldn't be at all surprised
to learn otherwise.


--
athel

[g***@rpufsd.org]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 at 11:25:04 AM UTC-4, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
>
>
> "There are many people alive today who are directly descended from Oliver Cromwell, via his
> son Henry and his daughters Bridget and Frances. Their descent has been thoroughly
> researched and reconstructed down to the mid Victorian period. Thus so long as you can
> trace your ancestry back as far as the 1860s, you should be able to see quite easily whether
> or not you lock into one of the proven lines of descent from Cromwell."
>
>

I am a descendant of daniel Crumb of Rhode Island. IDK if it's directly or not but Daniel is my 9th great grandfather following the paternal lineage from my great great grandfather. (does that make sense?).

Anyway.. I was reading "The Crumb Genealogy" (it's free on Google books) and it was stated that it wasn't known (at the time of the book writing) from where Daniel was descended from. there were three "rumors", one of them being he's descended from the Cromwells. If he were, I'm thinking more along the lines of the name Cromwell was shortened for recording purposes (Like my great grandfather's name was from a long polish "ski" name to a six letter "Americanized" name). It could also be thru marriage as well.

I prob will never know but that would just be so freaking awesome if we were related to them!

So i Just wanted to post that. :)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <acd12084-e916-4410-b8f0-***@googlegroups.com>,
***@rpufsd.org writes:
[]
>"rumors", one of them being he's descended from the Cromwells. If he
>were, I'm thinking more along the lines of the name Cromwell was
>shortened for recording purposes (Like my great grandfather's name was
>from a long polish "ski" name to a six letter "Americanized" name). It
>could also be thru marriage as well.
>
>I prob will never know but that would just be so freaking awesome if we
>were related to them!
[]
I fear not: I think I've read (probably here) that his _male_ line died
out, so anyone claiming descent _and with the name Cromwell_ is likely
(not impossible) to be wrong. (I know you're not _claiming_ as such.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

" ... but ... on the sub-ether radio, [it said] you're dead!"
"Yeah, that's right, I just haven't stopped moving yet." (link episode)

[o***@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at 3:25:04 AM UTC+12, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> As a republican (though not a particularly virulent or obsessive one), I fell to musing over the
> weekend while watching the Jubilee pageant on the Thames (for the boats, not the royals)
> whether there are any living descendants of Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>
> According to various websites, there are many. The following site
>
> http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/cromwellcollection/genealogy/heredis/info.htm
>
> says.....
>
> "There are many people alive today who are directly descended from Oliver Cromwell, via his
> son Henry and his daughters Bridget and Frances. Their descent has been thoroughly
> researched and reconstructed down to the mid Victorian period. Thus so long as you can
> trace your ancestry back as far as the 1860s, you should be able to see quite easily whether
> or not you lock into one of the proven lines of descent from Cromwell."
>
> I am aware for certain of only one, the Yorkshirewoman Katharine Worsley, the Duchess of
> Kent (and of course her children), who was born at Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, North
> Yorkshire, in 1933 . She is the 8x-great-granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell via one of his
> daughters, the aforementioned Frances. Ironic, is it not, that she is the Queen's first cousin,
> yet it was her ancestor who was responsible for the execution of HM's 9x-great-grandfather
> in 1649? I wonder if they ever discuss it over afternoon tea!
>
> Cromwell and his wife Elizabeth Bourchier had nine children of whom six survived to
> adulthood but only three produced descendants.
>
> I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list??? Personally, I wish I were
> one but no such luck!
>
>
> --
> Roy Stockdill
> Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
> Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
>
> "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
> and that is not being talked about."
> OSCAR WILDE


I am 19th Great- Grandchild of Oliver Cromwell. I don't know which one of Oliver's Children started my family line but I am a descendant of Oliver Cromwell.

[Ron Taylor]

On 2/10/2016 11:18 AM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at 3:25:04 AM UTC+12, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
>> As a republican (though not a particularly virulent or obsessive one), I fell to musing over the
>> weekend while watching the Jubilee pageant on the Thames (for the boats, not the royals)
>> whether there are any living descendants of Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
>> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
>> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>>
>> According to various websites, there are many. The following site
>>
>> http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/cromwellcollection/genealogy/heredis/info.htm
>>
>> says.....
>>
>> "There are many people alive today who are directly descended from Oliver Cromwell, via his
>> son Henry and his daughters Bridget and Frances. Their descent has been thoroughly
>> researched and reconstructed down to the mid Victorian period. Thus so long as you can
>> trace your ancestry back as far as the 1860s, you should be able to see quite easily whether
>> or not you lock into one of the proven lines of descent from Cromwell."
>>
>> I am aware for certain of only one, the Yorkshirewoman Katharine Worsley, the Duchess of
>> Kent (and of course her children), who was born at Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, North
>> Yorkshire, in 1933 . She is the 8x-great-granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell via one of his
>> daughters, the aforementioned Frances. Ironic, is it not, that she is the Queen's first cousin,
>> yet it was her ancestor who was responsible for the execution of HM's 9x-great-grandfather
>> in 1649? I wonder if they ever discuss it over afternoon tea!
>>
>> Cromwell and his wife Elizabeth Bourchier had nine children of whom six survived to
>> adulthood but only three produced descendants.
>>
>> I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list??? Personally, I wish I were
>> one but no such luck!
>>
>>
>> --
>> Roy Stockdill
>> Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
>> Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
>>
>> "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
>> and that is not being talked about."
>> OSCAR WILDE
>
>
> I am 19th Great- Grandchild of Oliver Cromwell. I don't know which one of Oliver's Children started my family line but I am a descendant of Oliver Cromwell.
>


Not for a moment doubting you but I'm curious - if you don't from which
son you are descended how can you know you are descended from Oliver?

[w***@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 at 4:25:04 PM UTC+1, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> As a republican (though not a particularly virulent or obsessive one), I fell to musing over the
> weekend while watching the Jubilee pageant on the Thames (for the boats, not the royals)
> whether there are any living descendants of Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>
> According to various websites, there are many. The following site
>
> http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/cromwellcollection/genealogy/heredis/info.htm
>
> says.....
>
> "There are many people alive today who are directly descended from Oliver Cromwell, via his
> son Henry and his daughters Bridget and Frances. Their descent has been thoroughly
> researched and reconstructed down to the mid Victorian period. Thus so long as you can
> trace your ancestry back as far as the 1860s, you should be able to see quite easily whether
> or not you lock into one of the proven lines of descent from Cromwell."
>
> I am aware for certain of only one, the Yorkshirewoman Katharine Worsley, the Duchess of
> Kent (and of course her children), who was born at Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, North
> Yorkshire, in 1933 . She is the 8x-great-granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell via one of his
> daughters, the aforementioned Frances. Ironic, is it not, that she is the Queen's first cousin,
> yet it was her ancestor who was responsible for the execution of HM's 9x-great-grandfather
> in 1649? I wonder if they ever discuss it over afternoon tea!
>
> Cromwell and his wife Elizabeth Bourchier had nine children of whom six survived to
> adulthood but only three produced descendants.
>
> I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list??? Personally, I wish I were
> one but no such luck!
>
>
> --
> Roy Stockdill
> Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
> Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
>
> "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
> and that is not being talked about."
> OSCAR WILDE

I am not a descendant, however, I am descended from a different branch of the same family. The one which never left Wales and never changed its surname.

[z***@raroa.school.nz]

On Sunday, 20 March 2016 01:54:40 UTC+13, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 4, 2012 at 4:25:04 PM UTC+1, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> > As a republican (though not a particularly virulent or obsessive one), I fell to musing over the
> > weekend while watching the Jubilee pageant on the Thames (for the boats, not the royals)
> > whether there are any living descendants of Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
> > abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
> > albeit for only a relatively short period.
> >
> > According to various websites, there are many. The following site
> >
> > http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/cromwellcollection/genealogy/heredis/info.htm
> >
> > says.....
> >
> > "There are many people alive today who are directly descended from Oliver Cromwell, via his
> > son Henry and his daughters Bridget and Frances. Their descent has been thoroughly
> > researched and reconstructed down to the mid Victorian period. Thus so long as you can
> > trace your ancestry back as far as the 1860s, you should be able to see quite easily whether
> > or not you lock into one of the proven lines of descent from Cromwell."
> >
> > I am aware for certain of only one, the Yorkshirewoman Katharine Worsley, the Duchess of
> > Kent (and of course her children), who was born at Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, North
> > Yorkshire, in 1933 . She is the 8x-great-granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell via one of his
> > daughters, the aforementioned Frances. Ironic, is it not, that she is the Queen's first cousin,
> > yet it was her ancestor who was responsible for the execution of HM's 9x-great-grandfather
> > in 1649? I wonder if they ever discuss it over afternoon tea!
> >
> > Cromwell and his wife Elizabeth Bourchier had nine children of whom six survived to
> > adulthood but only three produced descendants.
> >
> > I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list??? Personally, I wish I were
> > one but no such luck!
> >
> >
> > --
> > Roy Stockdill
> > Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
> > Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
> >
> > "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
> > and that is not being talked about."
> > OSCAR WILDE
>
> I am not a descendant, however, I am descended from a different branch of the same family. The one which never left Wales and never changed its surname.

I am a descendant

[j***@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 at 10:25:04 AM UTC-5, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> As a republican (though not a particularly virulent or obsessive one), I fell to musing over the
> weekend while watching the Jubilee pageant on the Thames (for the boats, not the royals)
> whether there are any living descendants of Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>
> According to various websites, there are many. The following site
>
> http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/cromwellcollection/genealogy/heredis/info.htm
>
> says.....
>
> "There are many people alive today who are directly descended from Oliver Cromwell, via his
> son Henry and his daughters Bridget and Frances. Their descent has been thoroughly
> researched and reconstructed down to the mid Victorian period. Thus so long as you can
> trace your ancestry back as far as the 1860s, you should be able to see quite easily whether
> or not you lock into one of the proven lines of descent from Cromwell."
>
> I am aware for certain of only one, the Yorkshirewoman Katharine Worsley, the Duchess of
> Kent (and of course her children), who was born at Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, North
> Yorkshire, in 1933 . She is the 8x-great-granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell via one of his
> daughters, the aforementioned Frances. Ironic, is it not, that she is the Queen's first cousin,
> yet it was her ancestor who was responsible for the execution of HM's 9x-great-grandfather
> in 1649? I wonder if they ever discuss it over afternoon tea!
>
> Cromwell and his wife Elizabeth Bourchier had nine children of whom six survived to
> adulthood but only three produced descendants.
>
> I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list??? Personally, I wish I were
> one but no such luck!
>
>
> --
> Roy Stockdill
> Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
> Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
>
> "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
> and that is not being talked about."
> OSCAR WILDE

[j***@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 at 10:25:04 AM UTC-5, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> As a republican (though not a particularly virulent or obsessive one), I fell to musing over the
> weekend while watching the Jubilee pageant on the Thames (for the boats, not the royals)
> whether there are any living descendants of Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>
> According to various websites, there are many. The following site
>
> http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/cromwellcollection/genealogy/heredis/info.htm
>
> says.....
>
> "There are many people alive today who are directly descended from Oliver Cromwell, via his
> son Henry and his daughters Bridget and Frances. Their descent has been thoroughly
> researched and reconstructed down to the mid Victorian period. Thus so long as you can
> trace your ancestry back as far as the 1860s, you should be able to see quite easily whether
> or not you lock into one of the proven lines of descent from Cromwell."
>
> I am aware for certain of only one, the Yorkshirewoman Katharine Worsley, the Duchess of
> Kent (and of course her children), who was born at Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, North
> Yorkshire, in 1933 . She is the 8x-great-granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell via one of his
> daughters, the aforementioned Frances. Ironic, is it not, that she is the Queen's first cousin,
> yet it was her ancestor who was responsible for the execution of HM's 9x-great-grandfather
> in 1649? I wonder if they ever discuss it over afternoon tea!
>
> Cromwell and his wife Elizabeth Bourchier had nine children of whom six survived to
> adulthood but only three produced descendants.
>
> I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list??? Personally, I wish I were
> one but no such luck!
>
>
> --
> Roy Stockdill
> Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
> Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
>
> "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
> and that is not being talked about."
> OSCAR WILDE

[a***@gmail.com]

Im actually related to him myself, hes my 10x great geandad or something like that, i have been looking for the article to prove it today but had no luck, my sister was the last one to have it, she should be more careful of where she puts things...

[Doug Laidlaw]

If anybody knows the present status of the rule, I have even forgotten
what it called:

When Trust deeds could not go on forever, the time limit was 21 years
after a named living person. The starting person was somebody easy to
identify, yet unlikely to have more children. Usually, it was a
recently deceased monarch, but Oliver Cromwell would serve. The formula
was that the deed would end on the death of the last descendant of the
named monarch who was living at the date the deed was created. For a
moment, I thought that you were talking about something similar.

A link from Google Groups:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.britain/UJnea3ZTx04
gives in turn a link to a tree of Cromwell's that apparently ends in
1860. If you know which of your ancestors were alive in 1860, the tree
will do the rest.

Doug.


On 28/11/17 05:40, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> Im actually related to him myself, hes my 10x great geandad or something like that, i have been looking for the article to prove it today but had no luck, my sister was the last one to have it, she should be more careful of where she puts things...
>
And "boys should marry but not girls. Boys need somebody to pick up
after them." Like Henry Higgins needing Eliza to find his slippers.

[Graeme Wall]

On 10/12/2017 19:05, Doug Laidlaw wrote:
> If anybody knows the present status  of the rule, I have even forgotten
> what it called:
>
> When Trust deeds could not go on forever, the time limit was 21 years
> after a named living person.  The starting person was somebody easy to
> identify, yet unlikely to have more children.  Usually, it was a
> recently deceased monarch, but Oliver Cromwell would serve.  The formula
> was that the deed would end on the death of the last descendant of the
> named monarch who was living at the date the deed was created.  For a
> moment, I thought that you were talking about something similar.
>
> A link from Google Groups:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.britain/UJnea3ZTx04
> gives in turn a link to a tree of Cromwell's that apparently ends in
> 1860.  If you know which of your ancestors were alive in 1860, the tree
> will do the rest.
>

Now gives a 404 error.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

[john]

On 10/12/2017 20:08, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 10/12/2017 19:05, Doug Laidlaw wrote:
>> If anybody knows the present status  of the rule, I have even
>> forgotten what it called:
>>
>> When Trust deeds could not go on forever, the time limit was 21 years
>> after a named living person.  The starting person was somebody easy to
>> identify, yet unlikely to have more children.  Usually, it was a
>> recently deceased monarch, but Oliver Cromwell would serve.  The
>> formula was that the deed would end on the death of the last
>> descendant of the named monarch who was living at the date the deed
>> was created.  For a moment, I thought that you were talking about
>> something similar.
>>
>> A link from Google Groups:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.britain/UJnea3ZTx04
>> gives in turn a link to a tree of Cromwell's that apparently ends in
>> 1860.  If you know which of your ancestors were alive in 1860, the
>> tree will do the rest.
>>
>
> Now gives a 404 error.
>
>

The link in Google Groups,
http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/cromwellcollection/genealogy/heredis/info.htm
gives a 404 error

But it is preserved in the Internet Archive, the WayBack Maschine, e.g. :

https://web.archive.org/web/20130710082134/http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk:80/cromwellcollection/genealogy/heredis/accueil.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20130710075003/http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk:80/cromwellcollection/genealogy/fiches/fiche0.htm

[s***@iauctionco.com]

My husband, Brandon, is a direct descendant of Oliver Cromwell through his daughter Bridget. We are located in north central Arkansas (USA), and there are lots of his cousins in this area and in southern Missouri that are direct descendants.

[j***@yahoo.com]

Hello my man, I'm a direct descendant of Sir Oliver Cromwell Lord and Protector of the Realm, on my mother's side. My name's James Scot Sullivan.

[s***@gmail.com]

Cromwell was an awful man why would you want to be descendent from him. It's like saying you'd like to be descended from Hitler or some other mass murderer.

[Richard Smith]

On 09/02/18 03:39, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> Cromwell was an awful man why would you want to be descendent from him.

Only bad genealogists get to choose who they (claim to be) descended
from. I think most researchers accept that once you go that many
generations back, everyone will have some thoroughly odious, if not
outright evil ancestors. Sometimes they're the more interesting ancestors.

> It's like saying you'd like to be descended from Hitler

Hitler had no documented children. Just possibly Jean-Marie Loret was
his son, but probably not. And maybe there's the slenderest of
possibilities that Unity Mitford bore him a child. No genealogist worth
their salt would accept either based on the evidence currently known.
By contrast, Cromwell had many well documented children, some of whom
themselves had descendants. Comparing the two is to compare fact with
fiction.

Richard

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@mid.individual.net>, Richard Smith
<***@ex-parrot.com> writes:
>On 09/02/18 03:39, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> Cromwell was an awful man why would you want to be descendent from him.
>
>Only bad genealogists get to choose who they (claim to be) descended
>from. I think most researchers accept that once you go that many
>generations back, everyone will have some thoroughly odious, if not
>outright evil ancestors. Sometimes they're the more interesting
>ancestors.
[]
I wish; someone either famous _or_ infamous would be nice! But, like I
suspect most people, my _direct_ ancestors are all boring miners,
farmers, or the ubiquitous "Ag. Lab.". (Some of those off to the sides
are _moderately_ interesting - rich, or blew his brains out, or ..., but
these are linked by one or more marriage links.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Grammar is there to help, not hinder."
-- Mark Wallace, APIHNA, 2nd December 2000 (quoted by John Flynn 2000-12-6)

[Richard Smith]

On 10/02/18 00:48, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> I wish; someone either famous _or_ infamous would be nice! But, like I
> suspect most people, my _direct_ ancestors are all boring miners,
> farmers, or the ubiquitous "Ag. Lab.".

Ah, but some of those can be quite interestingly obnoxious. The second
husband of one of my Jersey ancestors was repeatedly imprisoned for
battering his wife and children, and eventually the court required him
to stay away from his wife, ordered him to pay her a maintenance grant,
and gave her control over her property. Nowadays that would be sad but
not particularly exceptional, but this was in 1813 in a thoroughly
working class family. I've never come across anything this at so early
a date, and it's moderately well documented in the court records for the
island.

Richard

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@mid.individual.net>, Richard Smith
<***@ex-parrot.com> writes:
>On 10/02/18 00:48, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> I wish; someone either famous _or_ infamous would be nice! But, like I
>> suspect most people, my _direct_ ancestors are all boring miners,
>> farmers, or the ubiquitous "Ag. Lab.".
>
>Ah, but some of those can be quite interestingly obnoxious. The second
>husband of one of my Jersey ancestors was repeatedly imprisoned for
>battering his wife and children, and eventually the court required him
>to stay away from his wife, ordered him to pay her a maintenance grant,
>and gave her control over her property. Nowadays that would be sad but
>not particularly exceptional, but this was in 1813 in a thoroughly
>working class family. I've never come across anything this at so early
>a date, and it's moderately well documented in the court records for
>the island.
>
>Richard

Oh, indeed - there are stories no doubt; my great-uncle chronicled his
life growing up in a mining village in the north of England, crossing
the Atlantic (several times), and his experiences in America, including
making records (he was Bill Haley - but no, not that one!) and
encountering (briefly) the KKK [if anyone wants a copy, do ask: IMO it's
a good read]. Another more distant - on the Meacoe/Meacock side - was
involved in the Gold Rush (I forget which one), and one of his
descendants is publishing "Ernie's Gold". But nobody famous or infamous!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it's not on fire, it's a software problem.

[broughps]

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 9:06:21 AM UTC-5, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <***@mid.individual.net>, Richard Smith
> <***@ex-parrot.com> writes:
> >On 10/02/18 00:48, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> >
> >> I wish; someone either famous _or_ infamous would be nice! But, like I
> >> suspect most people, my _direct_ ancestors are all boring miners,
> >> farmers, or the ubiquitous "Ag. Lab.".
> >
> >Ah, but some of those can be quite interestingly obnoxious. The second
> >husband of one of my Jersey ancestors was repeatedly imprisoned for
> >battering his wife and children, and eventually the court required him
> >to stay away from his wife, ordered him to pay her a maintenance grant,
> >and gave her control over her property. Nowadays that would be sad but
> >not particularly exceptional, but this was in 1813 in a thoroughly
> >working class family. I've never come across anything this at so early
> >a date, and it's moderately well documented in the court records for
> >the island.
> >
> >Richard
>
> Oh, indeed - there are stories no doubt; my great-uncle chronicled his
> life growing up in a mining village in the north of England, crossing
> the Atlantic (several times), and his experiences in America, including
> making records (he was Bill Haley - but no, not that one!) and
> encountering (briefly) the KKK [if anyone wants a copy, do ask: IMO it's
> a good read]. Another more distant - on the Meacoe/Meacock side - was
> involved in the Gold Rush (I forget which one), and one of his
> descendants is publishing "Ernie's Gold". But nobody famous or infamous!

See I think these people are just as interesting as any "famous" people. Sometimes I wish WDYTYA would pick some average person on the street and do their family tree. I'm sure it wouldn't be any less interesting than the celebs they get.

Broughps

[Ian Goddard]

On 10/02/18 15:34, broughps wrote:
> Sometimes I wish WDYTYA would pick some average person on the street and do their family tree. I'm sure it wouldn't be any less interesting than the celebs they get.

Sometimes I wish they hadn't given up on June Whitfield because,
according to what Roy told us, she knew too much. If they'd treated it
as a challenge they might have got further with some of our common
Newton ancestors than I have.

--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk

[Gordon]

"broughps" wrote in message
news:b317fdf0-e7e5-4eb2-8ebd-***@googlegroups.com...
>
>On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 9:06:21 AM UTC-5, J. P. Gilliver (John)
>wrote:
>
>See I think these people are just as interesting as any "famous" people.
>Sometimes I wish WDYTYA would pick some average person on the street and do
>their family tree. I'm sure it wouldn't be any less interesting than the
>celebs they get.
>
>Broughps

One of my 3xGt Grandfather's was involved with the notorious East End
"Godfather" of the late 1700's early 1800's, Joseph Merceron.

Gordon

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@slave.orpheusnet.co.uk>, Gordon
<***@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>"broughps" wrote in message
>news:b317fdf0-e7e5-4eb2-8ebd-***@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 9:06:21 AM UTC-5, J. P. Gilliver
>>(John) wrote:
>>
>>See I think these people are just as interesting as any "famous"
>>people. Sometimes I wish WDYTYA would pick some average person on the
>>street and do their family tree. I'm sure it wouldn't be any less
>>interesting than the celebs they get.

To us, definitely, and to the general public, yes once they've got to
the interesting ancestor; however, they need the celebs to get the
general public to watch the prog. in the first place )-:.
>>
>>Broughps
>
>One of my 3xGt Grandfather's was involved with the notorious East End
>"Godfather" of the late 1700's early 1800's, Joseph Merceron.
>
>Gordon
>
One of my currently _living_ relatives (very distant, fortunately) is a
TNPOW (thoroughly nasty piece of work) [Google for Winswell Sunderland -
it's fortunately a rare enough name], who prompted me to ask here if we
have anything like the US system (or systems - it may vary from place to
place in the US) for checking whether a named individual is still banged
up or not. [Apparently we don't.] My (US) cousin, who is more closely
related, wanted to know!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

User Error: Replace user, hit any key to continue.

[broughps]

On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 9:04:06 AM UTC-5, Gordon wrote:
> "broughps" wrote in message
> news:b317fdf0-e7e5-4eb2-8ebd-***@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 9:06:21 AM UTC-5, J. P. Gilliver (John)
> >wrote:
> >
> >See I think these people are just as interesting as any "famous" people.
> >Sometimes I wish WDYTYA would pick some average person on the street and do
> >their family tree. I'm sure it wouldn't be any less interesting than the
> >celebs they get.
> >
> >Broughps
>
> One of my 3xGt Grandfather's was involved with the notorious East End
> "Godfather" of the late 1700's early 1800's, Joseph Merceron.
>
> Gordon

See this is what I'm talking about. That would be interesting to hear about.

Broughps

[Ian Goddard]

On 09/02/18 10:07, Richard Smith wrote:
> I think most researchers accept that once you go that many
> generations back, everyone will have some thoroughly odious, if not
> outright evil ancestors.  Sometimes they're the more interesting ancestors.

Here's someone who just discovered that.

https://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/im-descendant-brute-who-villain-14270979

--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk

[o***@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at 1:25:04 AM UTC+10, Roy Stockdill wrote:
> As a republican (though not a particularly virulent or obsessive one), I fell to musing over the
> weekend while watching the Jubilee pageant on the Thames (for the boats, not the royals)
> whether there are any living descendants of Oliver Cromwell, my historical hero who
> abolished the monarchy and led the execution party of Charles I, making Britain a republic,
> albeit for only a relatively short period.
>
> According to various websites, there are many. The following site
>
> http://hipweb.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/cromwellcollection/genealogy/heredis/info.htm
>
> says.....
>
> "There are many people alive today who are directly descended from Oliver Cromwell, via his
> son Henry and his daughters Bridget and Frances. Their descent has been thoroughly
> researched and reconstructed down to the mid Victorian period. Thus so long as you can
> trace your ancestry back as far as the 1860s, you should be able to see quite easily whether
> or not you lock into one of the proven lines of descent from Cromwell."
>
> I am aware for certain of only one, the Yorkshirewoman Katharine Worsley, the Duchess of
> Kent (and of course her children), who was born at Hovingham Hall, Hovingham, North
> Yorkshire, in 1933 . She is the 8x-great-granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell via one of his
> daughters, the aforementioned Frances. Ironic, is it not, that she is the Queen's first cousin,
> yet it was her ancestor who was responsible for the execution of HM's 9x-great-grandfather
> in 1649? I wonder if they ever discuss it over afternoon tea!
>
> Cromwell and his wife Elizabeth Bourchier had nine children of whom six survived to
> adulthood but only three produced descendants.
>
> I wonder whether we have any Cromwell descendants on this list??? Personally, I wish I were
> one but no such luck!
>
>
> --
> Roy Stockdill
> Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
> Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
>
> "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
> and that is not being talked about."
> OSCAR WILDE

I am related to Oliver Cromwell.

[j***@gmail.com]

I am a living relative of Oliver Cromwell. Found this out after tracing back on ancestry.com

[Doug Laidlaw]

On 24/03/18 04:51, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> I am a living relative of Oliver Cromwell. Found this out after tracing back on ancestry.com
>
A chap found out from his DNA that he is a living descendant of
Carthaginian sailors. So what?

[h***@gmail.com]

I am the living decendant of his sister robina cromwell on my fathers side. In fact im a direct decendant as shes my great grandmother. She married her second husband john wilkins but before they married they had a son.andrew Wilkins the second who was baptised in westminster abbey. He was illigiamet and so was not included in history for the most part. Turns out that boy is my grandfather. My name at birthday was Emma louise wilkins. My dad even looks like john wilkins.

[Jenny M Benson]

On 23-Apr-18 04:04 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> I am the living decendant of his sister robina cromwell on my fathers side. In fact im a direct decendant as shes my great grandmother. She married her second husband john wilkins but before they married they had a son.andrew Wilkins the second who was baptised in westminster abbey. He was illigiamet and so was not included in history for the most part. Turns out that boy is my grandfather. My name at birthday was Emma louise wilkins. My dad even looks like john wilkins.

You are the great-grandchild of someone born 500-plus years ago?
Miraculous!
--
Jenny M Benson
http://jennygenes.blogspot.co.uk/

[Anne Chambers]

Jenny M Benson wrote:
> On 23-Apr-18 04:04 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> I am the living decendant of his sister robina cromwell on my fathers side. In fact im a direct decendant as
>> shes my great grandmother. She married her second husband john wilkins but before they married they had a
>> son.andrew Wilkins the second who was baptised in westminster abbey. He was illigiamet and so was not
>> included in history for the most part. Turns out that boy is my grandfather. My name at birthday was Emma
>> louise wilkins. My dad even looks like john wilkins.
>
> You are the great-grandchild of someone born 500-plus years ago? Miraculous!
You owe me a keyboard Jenny - I have just snorted wne on mine ;)

--
Anne Chambers
South Australia

anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

[c***@gmail.com]

Lord Oliver Cromwell was my Great x10 Grandfather
Through Henry Cromwell, then his daughter Edith immigrated to the US