Help me understand DNA testing

[ForresterModern]

Academic in the house. Academic cap on. I don't to dash your hopes, or let you risk embarassment, when you drop in for a cup of sugar at the neighboring castle BUT a knight would be considered aristocracy, as opposed to royalty, which is strictly the king's family.

Galician

Although the connection is loose, according to family historians :

"BALDWIN III, of Flanders, the Forester, ‘of the handsome beard’, who married the daughter of the Count of Luxemburg. This Forester was a great warrior and defended his Kingdom against the united forces of Emperour Henry, King Robert of France and the Duke of Normandy. He died in 1034 and was succeeded by his son:

6. BALDWIN IV, the Forester, called ‘LeDebonair’, who married Princess Adela, daughter of Robert, King of France. They had four children:

7. i. Baldwin V, the Forester

8. ii. Robert Forester, who conquered the Principality, Frisland.

9. iii. Matilda (or Maud) who married William the Conqueror.

10. iv. Sir Richard Forester, (sometimes Latinized, Ricardus Forestarius.)

10. SIR RICHARD FORESTER, mentioned above as the first to naturally bear the name, was head of the powerful Northumberland family of Foresters. "



Sir Richard Forrester was brother in law to William the Conqueror and reportedly his right hand lieutenant in William's conquest which extended north to about the Firth of Forth. Interestingly Corstorphine, parts of the Stirling region, and Northumberland were in some fashion seats of power for the Forrester clan from then on, with a disproportionate distribution of Forresters/Forsters/Fosters represented there in old and recent census data.

If you note more than one "Forrester" married royalty (Baldwin III to the daughter of the Count of Luxembourg, his son Baldwin IV to the daughter of the king of France, and their daughter Matilda to William the Conqueror). There are supposedly several other reports of male branches of the Forrester line marrying into various branches of a couple of the other historically royal bloodlines:

"18. SIR REGINALD who fought at Bannockburn in 1314. A number of his descendants were great chieftains, many being knighted, and were closely related to the Royal Families of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. "

As I said above I am still verifying the american lineage to the English/Scottish lineage, but feel confidant that I am only a year or less away from completing that task. DNA may be the final arbiter one way or the other, however. The knight to which I originally referred was a Sir Richard Forster who allegedly came to america in the early 1600's, landed and was "landed" in Virginia and begat the vast majority of the Forster/Foster families and descendants of those families that originated out of Virginia, one of which we believe to be mine. I am only a couple generations away from making my connection to the Old Country through Sir Richard (lineage verified back to the mid-late 1600's in the appropriate counties in Virginia).



We now return to your regulalry schedule broadcast.

[Galician]

Galician

Although the connection is loose, according to family historians :

"BALDWIN III, of Flanders, the Forester, ‘of the handsome beard’, who married the daughter of the Count of Luxemburg. This Forester was a great warrior and defended his Kingdom against the united forces of Emperour Henry, King Robert of France and the Duke of Normandy. He died in 1034 and was succeeded by his son:

6. BALDWIN IV, the Forester, called ‘LeDebonair’, who married Princess Adela, daughter of Robert, King of France. They had four children:

7. i. Baldwin V, the Forester

8. ii. Robert Forester, who conquered the Principality, Frisland.

9. iii. Matilda (or Maud) who married William the Conqueror.

10. iv. Sir Richard Forester, (sometimes Latinized, Ricardus Forestarius.)

10. SIR RICHARD FORESTER, mentioned above as the first to naturally bear the name, was head of the powerful Northumberland family of Foresters. "



Sir Richard Forrester was brother in law to William the Conqueror and reportedly his right hand lieutenant in William's conquest which extended north to about the Firth of Forth. Interestingly Corstorphine, parts of the Stirling region, and Northumberland were in some fashion seats of power for the Forrester clan from then on, with a disproportionate distribution of Forresters/Forsters/Fosters represented there in old and recent census data.

If you note more than one "Forrester" married royalty (Baldwin III to the daughter of the Count of Luxembourg, his son Baldwin IV to the daughter of the king of France, and their daughter Matilda to William the Conqueror). There are supposedly several other reports of male branches of the Forrester line marrying into various branches of a couple of the other historically royal bloodlines:

"18. SIR REGINALD who fought at Bannockburn in 1314. A number of his descendants were great chieftains, many being knighted, and were closely related to the Royal Families of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. "

As I said above I am still verifying the american lineage to the English/Scottish lineage, but feel confidant that I am only a year or less away from completing that task. DNA may be the final arbiter one way or the other, however. The knight to which I originally referred was a Sir Richard Forster who allegedly came to america in the early 1600's, landed and was "landed" in Virginia and begat the vast majority of the Forster/Foster families and descendants of those families that originated out of Virginia, one of which we believe to be mine. I am only a couple generations away from making my connection to the Old Country through Sir Richard (lineage verified back to the mid-late 1600's in the appropriate counties in Virginia).



We now return to your regulalry schedule broadcast.

Not to get into a huge debate, but as I stated before, counts would be aristocracy, not royalty.

Two further points, just for the record, in researching the Counts Baldwin, according to Wikipedia:

A) Baldwin III died in 962 and was succeeded by his son, Arnulf II.

B) Arnulf's son, Baldwin IV, begat his son and successor by his first wife, Ogive, daughter of the Count of Luxembourg. Later he was married to Eleanor, daughter of Richard II, Count of Normandy.

C) Baldwin V married Princess Adele of France in 1028. (So this is where a royal connection does indeed enter the family.) This Baldwin was the father of Mathilda, who married Count William of Normandy, who went on to become King of England.

Here endeth the lesson.

P.S. An interesting footnote perhaps. Do we remember that the major reason for William's Conquest was that King Harold Godwinson's army was exhausted from a previous battle? If not, let me remind people that the English army had just fought off a Norwegian force on the northeastern coast of England. Just days later, William's forces landed in the south. One of the two leaders of the Norwegian invasion was married to Mathilda's aunt, daughter of Baldwin IV. Ah, family!

[ForresterModern]

Not to get into a huge debate, but as I stated before, counts would be aristocracy, not royalty.

Two further points, just for the record, in researching the Counts Baldwin, according to Wikipedia:

A) Baldwin III died in 962 and was succeeded by his son, Arnulf II.

B) Arnulf's son, Baldwin IV, begat his son and successor by his first wife, Ogive, daughter of the Count of Luxembourg. Later he was married to Eleanor, daughter of Richard II, Count of Normandy.

C) Baldwin V married Princess Adele of France in 1028. (So this is where a royal connection does indeed enter the family.) This Baldwin was the father of Mathilda, who married Count William of Normandy, who went on to become King of England.

Here endeth the lesson.

Guess I should be wearing my asbestos kilt right about now. Thank you for your kind and gentle corrections to some of my statements, but as I said they were based on "family histories", which are as much if not more prone to factual errors as are the listings in Wikipedia sometimes. Key point: potential royalty relations as described above and graciously acknowledged by you.