About an Ancestor's Name, Gamma
@Gamma Gamaliel I admire your persistence — it has the tenacity of a minor demon who’s been told he can’t leave the paperwork pit until he gets one more soul’s middle name.
“Gamma, if you’re hoping my ancestor fled because Charles I was collecting heads like a Stuart‑era Pokémon trainer, I’m afraid history disappoints. The only head Charles I definitively lost was his own — and Parliament handled that part.”
Some family stories stay in the family. That’s not secrecy; that’s good spiritual hygiene. Even the devils in the seventh circle know when to stop poking at a locked door.
So I’ll keep my ancestor’s name safely tucked away, and you’re welcome to keep your questions — perhaps roast them lightly over whatever infernal campfire you’re tending today.
If he wanted to be interrogated centuries later, he’d have stayed in England and saved himself the boat fare
“Gamma, if you’re hoping my ancestor fled because Charles I was collecting heads like a Stuart‑era Pokémon trainer, I’m afraid history disappoints. The only head Charles I definitively lost was his own — and Parliament handled that part.”
Some family stories stay in the family. That’s not secrecy; that’s good spiritual hygiene. Even the devils in the seventh circle know when to stop poking at a locked door.
So I’ll keep my ancestor’s name safely tucked away, and you’re welcome to keep your questions — perhaps roast them lightly over whatever infernal campfire you’re tending today.
If he wanted to be interrogated centuries later, he’d have stayed in England and saved himself the boat fare
Comments
As you were.
Family folklore is fair game for curiosity, sure. But there’s a difference between asking a question and assuming you’re entitled to the answer. I shared exactly as much of the story as I intended to, and the rest stays where it belongs — with the family. Not every anecdote is an invitation to cross‑examine.
And tried Balmerino for treason who was sentenced to death but pardoned. If you thought you might get tried for treason or something else serious, it could be smarter to flee rather than to depend on getting pardoned
If you'd said that you had a Puritan ancestor who emigrated to Massachusetts during the reign of Charles I, as many did, then I probably wouldn't have questioned it. I'd accept that at face value.
What I was challenging was the idea that your ancestor was fleeing possible beheading, a form of execution that was reserved for the nobility and only for cases of alleged treason.
As far as I am aware no Puritan nobility were executed during the reign of Charles I and no Puritan aristocrats emigrated to Massachusetts. Socially they would have been minor gentry if that.
Hence my probing.
If an aristocratic Puritan had done so anyone with an interest in that period would have heard of them because it would have been a big deal.
I'm not saying that prominent Puritans didn't migrate to Massachusetts for religious reasons or because they were being given a hard time, nor am I saying that your ancestor wasn't one of them.
I'm perfectly happy to accept that he may well have been.
What I was challenging was the assertion that his head would have been on the block if he hadn't sailed the Atlantic.
I'm not prying into your family history to expose your identity for all Shipmates to see but I do feel as though I've issued a legitimate challenge to an historical assertion that you haven't backed up.
The brother of one of my ancestors went AWOL during the Anglo-American War of 1812-14 and settled in Upper New York State.
I can provide evidence for that.
Where's your evidence?
It's nearly 10.30pm here @Gramps49. I attended Vespers earlier this evening and have a friend staying so haven't been on the Ship to respond until now.
So your estimate of time differences across the Pond is as inaccurate as some of your other assertions.
If I've called you to Hell in the past it's probably no more than you've deserved for making some baseless assertion or other. 😉
I'm no longer in the habit of calling people to Hell and I can understand your frustration with me in this instance.
You do have a rather loveable trait of getting the wrong end of the stick at times.
Did Charles I behead Puritans?
No.
Was anyone beheaded in those days who wasn't an aristocrat or member of the nobility?
No.
Prove me wrong.
You can't.
Sure you can choose not to answer questions, and anyone reading is free to draw conclusions about the reliability of the anecdote and any point you might be trying to make from it. Absent other evidence it can be reasonably assumed that 400 year old family legend has at minimum grown in the telling if not been invented entirely.
I made a passing historical remark, not a doctoral dissertation, and yet here you are, demanding citations like the gatekeeper of the Library of the Damned. I admire the enthusiasm — truly — but not every anecdote requires a footnote blessed by the ninth circle’s editorial board.
Some of us can mention a family story without being dragged before the Infernal Committee for Historical Verification. My ancestor escaped a king with a fondness for beheading; I’m beginning to suspect he’d have fled your line of questioning with equal urgency.
So here’s my final word on the matter: if you want to interrogate someone, take a number and join the queue of demons tapping their pitchforks impatiently. I’m not here to audition for your personal inquisition.
Actually, King Charles I signed a Royal Pardon for Archbishop William Laud but Parliament ignored it and passed a Bill of Attainder in order to execute him.
It was a different scenario to the execution of Strafford as the King signed the death warrant, something he bitterly regretted.
Charles didn't want Laud executed but he did regret supporting him to the extent that he had done initially.
He was a complex character, he could be rash when he needed to be circumspect, indecisive when he needed to be decisive.
But no, he didn't go round executing Puritans, although he may well have tried to get the five MPs who escaped arrest put on trial for treason if they hadn't fled.
'I see the birds have flown.'
A fondness for beheading wasn't one of them.
I could understand Henry VIII being accused of that.
Anyway, this isn't the first time you've posted unsubstantiated assertions nor will it be the last.
Till next time.
People's family trees, especially if an ancestor was landed are often online or digitised, so if someone had a prominent landed ancestor with a distictive name you're not far off asking them to dox themselves/ out themselves by naming the ancestor which is poor netiquette. I really do not recommend this.
(PS. Not only nobles but landed gentry could be beheaded and that's a much larger pool than just nobility)
I think we could probably just let the narrative stand that your ancestors left England at a time when they were threatened by the possibility of violent persecution, with the decapitation of other opponents of the king exemplifying the general condition of governance, even if that is not precisely the danger your ancestors were facing?
Doublethink, Admin