Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Regarding that 17th Century Ancestor

In Cindy Martin's “confirmation” that she is a 4th cousin of Natacha Rambova, which she posted on Tracy Terhune's Facebook group, We Never Forget, she invites readers to join Ancestry.com and check out her lineage with this caveat:

“...I warn you though, its an arduous task.”

I did check it out with a genealogist who took a look at it for me after I forwarded them the two page document and explanation Martin posted. Because they shared their assessment with me I will do the same here.

If Martin was a fourth cousin of Natacha and nothing more, simply stated as she did... this would have been straight forward. This is not the case, see the top of her ancestry.com document:

...where it states clearly that the relationship between Natacha and Cindy Martin's son is “5th cousin 3x removed of husband of 1st cousin 6x removed”.

To put it simply, a “fourth cousin” is not the same as a, “4th cousin 3x removed of husband of 1st cousin 6x removed”.

Removed” means going back a generation, meaning she shares what could be mathematically 900-1500 (or more) possible cousins from many generations ago and these cousins are only related to a “husband's” lineage six generations ago (i.e. someone married into her family).

In regards to the subject of that “husband” as was pointed out to me, on page two of her document we find:

So according to her own document, Martin alleges her connection through the Meeks family and in this she shares no bloodline or DNA with Rambova. This is made clear when it is explained she is not a fourth cousin but a “fourth cousin, 3 times removed of a husband's first cousin six times removed”. The connection with the Kimball family is made by the marriage of Sarah Jane Meeks (1841-1920) and Henry Kimball (1833-1862).

“Husband”, Henry Kimball's common relative with Rambova is 6 x removed, or six generations removed... which is a long, long time ago. The genealogist easily found the common relative shared by Natacha and Henry Kimball: an early 17th century Kimball living in England (see page one of the ancestry.com document, Richard Kimball (1595-1697).

In her summary, Martin mentions that she is connected to Natacha via a “Priddy Meeks” who does not appear on her document. The document only reflects an extremely remote connection and this by marriage to the Kimball family. Indeed there are many Priddy Meeks in ancestry.com and it is impossible to verify which one Martin refers to as she does not include the dates or other identifying information. If the Meeks family is her connection, there is no way to verify this.

Martin explains this all took her years to discover which is surprising as it is no longer an arduous task and today it can be accomplished with a speedy search engine. It is an accessible venue where you can enter data quickly and have connections returned almost instantly.

And all of this is contingent upon Martin telling the truth about her being adopted and by whom. We have to take her word for that. She alleges the entire document is far too long for us mortals to fathom as it is 30 pages long. This should tell anyone familiar with ancestry that this is not a close relation; the longer the family tree/explanation... the more remote a connection.

If her document presented is truthful, then she herself has admitted she is not a blood relative because the Meeks married into the Kimball family. Someone who married into your family over one hundred years ago who shares what would be a 17th century ancestor with Natacha Rambova does not make you just a “fourth cousin”. Her neglecting to cite her actual connection in full, in my opinion reveals she is counting on people being too confused by all of this to challenge her claim.

And any discussion about her physically resembling Natacha Rambova is therefore irrelevant in light of her own document which clearly shows the Meeks family married into the Kimball family. Even if she was a fourth cousin the idea she would resemble Natacha is ludicrous.

The genealogist I consulted referred to this as “lineage aerobics” and I for one close the book on this subject and think it would be not only more worth my time but easier to decipher the Aztec Calendar Sun stone than Cindy Martin's miles of alleged connections to Natacha Rambova. Better the Aztec star glyphs, knots and tails of serpents... than cryptic listings which represent hundreds of years of what mathematically represents thousands of possible fourth cousins many times removed.

Even if every word on her document is true...this was a marriage connection and there is no shared DNA.

There are several well-executed ancestry lineages of Natacha Rambova online... with plenty of living relatives both Kimball and Shaughnessy... and to date, none named Cindy Martin. 

Moving on.