Hi ! Could either Peter or TAF tell me a bit more ? Joseph Loomis (1590 - 1658) and Mary (White) Loomis (1590 - 1652) are my 9th Great - Grandparents . I had heard something about them being related to a baron or an earl (wasn't really ever sure
about that) but Richard I ? Why not go back to William ? Thanks .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11-Feb-23 4:45 AM, Mark Spitler m_spitler@comcast.net wrote:

Hi ! Could either Peter or TAF tell me a bit more ? Joseph Loomis (1590 - 1658) and Mary (White) Loomis (1590 - 1652) are my 9th Great - Grandparents . I had heard something about them being related to a baron or an earl (wasn't really ever sure

about that) but Richard I ? Why not go back to William ? Thanks .

The Loomis family is far beyond my sphere of readily accessible
information, hence my asking about them here.

However, I can tell you from experience in this newsgroup that some
people consider the "best" royal ancestor to be not the most famous or distinguished but rather the most recent king in their own ancestry.
Very few posters have ever focused on descent from St Louis, for
example, who might seem to be among the "best" medieval kings to
disinterested observers.

In the case of Richard I, it would have been well known in the Amherst
College circles of the Dickinson and Todd families that he had no
legitimate offspring. Consequently I assume that Mabel Loomis Todd's
family (unless she made it up herself without filling in details)
claimed to trace their lineage from his sole recorded illegitimate
child. This was Philippe, who was seigneur of Cognac by right of his
wife Amelia - but he was childless as far as is known. That is why I
wondered how the Loomis family may have tried to substantiate a fantasy
around this bloodline.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 9:45:49 AM UTC-8, Mark Spitler m_spitler@comcast.net wrote:

Hi ! Could either Peter or TAF tell me a bit more ? Joseph Loomis (1590 - 1658) and Mary (White) Loomis (1590 - 1652) are my 9th Great - Grandparents . I had heard something about them being related to a baron or an earl (wasn't really ever sure about

that) but Richard I ? Why not go back to William ? Thanks .

Joseph Loomis is currently not one of those immigrants who are considered to have a provable descent from royalty. As I mentioned, in the 19th century, the family invented a royal descent for themselves but this has long been known to be groundless. The
male line is not known prior to the great-grandfather of the immigrant (and maybe not even that - it has been 30 years since I looked at this immigrant's ancestry in detail, and the great-grandfather given him in the online trees these days is different
than the one assigned to him back then, so it is all pretty wonky).

I see that the internet genealogy echo chamber now shows a claimed royal descent via the immigrant's mother, but a quick tool around the various sites didn't turn up any actual evidence or argument for the connection, just repetition and credulous
acceptance. I don't see any obvious red flags, but I also don't see the slightest indication it hasn't just been made up, as are many such claims.

taf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)