A Question about Robert "King"Carter

[JWain35]

I'm sure a lot of you have heard of King Carter.(For those of you who haven't,he was a plantation owner/governor born in 1663 who died in 1732 and lived in Lancaster County,Virginia.)Anyway,my earliest ancestor whom I know of is Colonel William Carter,who was born in about 1641 and lived somewhere in Virginia.I don't know when he died.It's said somewhere on the Internet-I can't remember where-that William and Robert were related,possibly brothers,but I've never been able to confirm this.A lot is hinging on this,because if Robert is a relative that means I'm related to William the Conqueror,George Washington,Charlemagne,Robert E.Lee and others,while if I'm not related to him,my family is just a group of unknowns.Any information,any at all,would be greatly appreciated if you know anything about the subject.Thanks for reading.

[PhotoFamily]

Welcome to FTF
There are several pedigree family trees on familysearch with a William Carter, born abt 1641. One lists parents as Henry Carter & Frances Penn. That one also indicates William died in 1809 (!). Many trees do not list parents for him, one lists William Carter as his father.

Pedigree trees often do not provide information about the source of information (I didn't see any in few of the 30+ trees listing Wm Carter born 1641 that I looked at).

Haven't looked at Ancestry, and I don't know Virginia's records. Familysearch doesn't seem to have much to offer online:

https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/list#page=1&countryId=46

Its catalog is extensive. Films may be sent for a nominal fee to the Family History Center nearest you:
www.familysearch.org/search/search/library_catalog#searchType=catalog&filtered=true&f ed=false&collectionId=&catSearchType=place&searchC riteria=&placeName=Virginia&author_givenName=&auth or_surname=&subjectCountTotal=259&subjectIndex=250 &uri=http%3A//catalog-search-api%3A8080/www-catalogapi-webservice/search%3Fquery%3Dsubject_id%3A427593%26count%3D50& subjectId=427593

Have you checked Ancestry? They offer two-free-weeks (be sure to cancel before the free-period is up).
Good luck!

[JWain35]

Died in 1809!I hope I inherited those genes!Seriously,though,I think,after further checking,that perhaps he died around 1709.Could they have been confused?Who his parents were is a real mystery.I guess when you reach the 1600s it's hard to find solid documentation.Thanks for all the help.

[JWain35]

Oh,by the way,I'm not a member of Ancestry quite yet,so maybe I should start a free-trial membership and see what they've got.I'm glad you mentioned it.Thanks again.

[PhotoFamily]

Died in 1809!I hope I inherited those genes!Seriously,though,I think,after further checking,that perhaps he died around 1709.Could they have been confused?Who his parents were is a real mystery.I guess when you reach the 1600s it's hard to find solid documentation.Thanks for all the help.

I've checked trees on Ancestry now - yes, they indicate (without citing source) that he died 1709. There was a story, but I couldn't read it - I suspect a tree sync was keeping the record tied up.

[Olde Crone Holden]

Be wary. According to a discussion on ancestry boards, DNA tests have proved that many of the people who think they are descendants of Robert Carter are not, and it looks as if William is from a completely different line.

Although I am not a huge fan of DNA testing, the results do seem to be fairly clear in this particular case, with of course the usual limitations that it will only show clear unbroken MALE descent - you may still be related but down the female line.

OC

[JWain35]

Be wary. According to a discussion on ancestry boards, DNA tests have proved that many of the people who think they are descendants of Robert Carter are not, and it looks as if William is from a completely different line.



OC

Well,I agree with you there.After doing some more researching I found that it's possible that somebody named Thomas Carter,born in 1444 somewhere in England,is William's earliest traceable ancestor.Whether he is or not,though,after getting to Thomas you reach a dead end.I think I will have to join Ancestry,because there's just too much that you can never find without it.

[JudithM]

And even if descended from Robert be wary of assuming that "if Robert is a relative that means I'm related to William the Conqueror,George Washington,Charlemagne,Robert E.Lee and others" - this depends on whether the research and leaps of faith by owners of other trees can be trusted.
I would far prefer to be descended from "a group of unknowns" on a line which I know has been carefully researched - in any case each of those unknowns must have been fully rounded human beings with a great contribution to make to their own time and to my heredity.

[Olde Crone Holden]

I completely agree with Judith - the research leading back to William the Conqueror is extremely suspect and is not documented as far as I can see and isn't worth the paper it's written on.

The "unknowns", in this case descent from William Carter, actually have an extremely RARE DNA haplotype and personally i would find that a lot more interesting than being descended from William the Conqueror (or not, as seems most likely!).

OC

[JWain35]

And even if descended from Robert be wary of assuming that "if Robert is a relative that means I'm related to William the Conqueror,George Washington,Charlemagne,Robert E.Lee and others" - this depends on whether the research and leaps of faith by owners of other trees can be trusted.
I would far prefer to be descended from "a group of unknowns" on a line which I know has been carefully researched - in any case each of toe unknowns must have been fully rounded human beings with a great contribution to make to their own time and to my heredity.

Well,I agree;perhaps it was silly to assume that those family trees were right.But I saw the idea mentioned in several places,including an old book I've got,and there's a belief that's been circulating in my family for many years that this was the case,so I thought the idea made sense.Of course,even if there is no royal connection in the family,then being related to Washington and Lee still may be a possibility.Anyway,I'll take your advice from now on and be more skeptical of those claims.By the way,Olde Crone Holden,I hadn't heard of that DNA thing before.Do you know where I can find out more about that?Thanks for helping everyone.

[Olde Crone Holden]

Just put into google

"Robert King Carter DNA" and you will get dozens of hits.

Please remember though, when you are reading the results and conclusions etc, that they don';t actually have a sample of Robert Carter's DNA, so those who "know" they are descended from him, don't know any such thing, just that they are descended from a man in the same haplogroup as everyone else who thinks they are descended from him! I hope that makes sense.

OC

[kylejustin]

robert e. lee was a civil war general wasn't he? so if you have links to him, it should be fairly easy to uncover, given he was alive in the last 150 years.

as for charlemagne and william the conqueror, even if you can't find the documents tracing your lineage to them, i think you are a descendant anyway. there was a study done years ago, saying 3 quarters of those with western european blood, ie british, french, spanish descended from the plantagenets, the valois or the hapsburgs. when you think about it, the middle ages were around 600 years ago, so descent from nobility and royalty is expected i think. the problem lies with which lines and being able to prove it.

george washington had no descendants as far as i recall, so at best he is a sort of a cousin.

[Olde Crone Holden]

kyle

The Carter DNA project has identified the "descendants" of Robert King Carter as being in the R1b1 haplogroup - which is the most common group in the western world, shared by about 40% of males!

I would argue though, that you are no more likely to be descended from William the Conqueror than you are from Osric the goose boy - it is largely just luck which Y-dna survives and which dies out.

OC

[kylejustin]

i should think william the conqueror is an ancestor of almost everyone with a british ancestor. he was alive 1,000 years ago. but someone claiming they have his y chromosome DNA without digging him up and testing it is a stretch. so i do agree with you oc, that if you don't have robert king carter's actual DNA, it is an assumption that the DNA matches.

[Olde Crone Holden]

I'm not sure I follow your logic Kyle - ALL my 30 x GGPs were alive 1000 years ago, otherwise I wouldn't be here now. I don't see any reason why WC's genes would have triumphed over everyone else's.

OC

[kylejustin]

for the simple fact he is a king oc. and the amount of descendants he has.....everyone of royal or noble blood can count him as an ancestor. after a few centuries most of his descendants won't be aristocratic, but ordinary people. after a thousand years, i think it would be hard to find someone who isn't a descendant.

[JWain35]

robert e. lee was a civil war general wasn't he? so if you have links to him, it should be fairly easy to uncover, given he was alive in the last 150 years.

as for charlemagne and william the conqueror, even if you can't find the documents tracing your lineage to them, i think you are a descendant anyway. there was a study done years ago, saying 3 quarters of those with western european blood, ie british, french, spanish descended from the plantagenets, the valois or the hapsburgs. when you think about it, the middle ages were around 600 years ago, so descent from nobility and royalty is expected i think. the problem lies with which lines and being able to prove it.

george washington had no descendants as far as i recall, so at best he is a sort of a cousin.

Kylejustin,
Surprisingly the links between Lee,Washington,and Robert Carter is quite certain.We know that Robert Carter was Robert E.Lee's great-great-grandfather.You were right,George Washington never did have any descendants,but his stepson,George Washington Parke Custis,was Robert E.Lee's father-in-law;the connection is distant,but it's still there.Anyway,I guess this means little for me,since I'm likely not related to Robert Carter,but for those of you who are-hey,congratulations!I understand what you said about Charlemagne and William the Conqueror too,because I read somewhere that everyone with European lineage is supposed to be descended from Charlemagne,kind of like what you said about William the Conqueror.About the Plantagenets,by the way,before I thought I was a direct descendant of that family,but I guess without any Robert Carter connection,you can throw that out the window.

[Olde Crone Holden]

William the Conqueror certainly isn't one of MY ancestors, I can (almost) assure you! As far as I know, he never visited the remote moorland lands owned by my ancestors.

As the population of England was decimated by the black Death, it is quite possible that WC's genes died out completely, as did many other lines. Again, not sure why you would think that being a "King" makes your genes more durable than a commoner's - many a Royal line has completely failed, otherwise we would never have had any Queens.

And finally (you breathe a sigh!) William the Conqueror, the Plantaganets, Robert Carter and so on, did not spring into life with a completely unique Y-dna, they all inherited it from their father, who inherited it from his and so on. If you could prove you had the same Y-dna as WC, that doesn't prove you are descended from him, just that you are descended from a relative of his and that could have been almost anyone in the Western world.

OC

[kylejustin]

haha when i say almost everyone with british descent oc, i don't mean in the male line descending from william the conqueror. look at the queen, a descendant of his. but her paternal line does not start with him. every monarch of england since 1066 is a descendant of his. and the amount of other royal and noble lines that descend from medieval english monarchs is phenomenal. edward III alone had a large family, and very close to everyone with a title in england can trace descent from him. as for saying he may never have visited the north, well he may not, but having landed gentry for ancestors and looking into the aristocracy, just because someone never stepped foot in one place does not mean they don't have descendants there!

being a king just means your descendants are of more value in the marriage market, as you well know, breeding in the past meant a lot.