I had a flatmate once.............

[MWB]

who had a middle name of "Coeur" as he claimed to have ancestry to ole Dick the 1st.
This is nonsense.
There is no way to link your ancestry to the likes of someone like Dick or anyone back that far. The lines just far too diluted.
The only people who can prove their ancestry back anymore than 300 years are royals. But even then a secret b@stard might have been snuck in that no-one knew about at the time.
I can only prove my lineage back to 1825. The net is simply far too wide after that.

[sigma]

Seeing as Lionheart was a sobriquet, it's highly unlikely that a descendant of Richard I would have Coeur in their name.
As regards to proving lineage, genealogists use documentary evidence to substantiate their claim just as any member of a royal house would so it's not impossible to trace your ancestors back beyond 300 years. If you can only get back as far as 1825 then you're not trying hard enough.

[dot.hawkes]

Parish registers started in 1537 when Henry the V111 decided he wanted a better system thatn anywhere else in the civilsed world, if your ancestors lived in a village that already had a parish church then their family events from that date would have been recorded, in Latin but easy enough to decipher. In 1598 his daughter Elizabeth overhauled the system and made it ten times better.
manoral courts were the authority that controlled land and inheritance as well as justice and law, these date from the centuries before Henry decided to create parish records, if your familt were part of a Manor, and most places were, you can look at the extant manoral court rolls etc, mainly now at the PRO but there are some in local CROs.
There are many pedigrees that have been handed down and published through Burkes etc over the years, the college of arms has proven lineage for most gentry families and above. The published volumes over the years are available in Reference Libraries.
If circumstances in your family put them in the right place at the right time you can trace your direct line back as far as records go as above, however, the only real line you can truly trust is the distaff side, (female) as the fathers could have been anybody in some cases. Proven B@stardly bonds do however have some validation in research.

[dot.hawkes]

oh and I have proven ancestry on my dad's side to 1430 (see previous thread) from using parish records, wills and the records of the Guilds, which show the relationship of father / son through the apprenticeship bonds.

[Mr Veritas]

If you look at this site:~
http://www.thepeerage.com/
You will see it is quite easy to trace lineage back as far as Richard I.
However your friend proving a connection is another matter!

[dundurn]

Everything that has been said about tracing ancestry back further than is commonly thought possible is valid. It is more likely, however, the closer you are to an important family or to a large estate. In the particular case of Richard I, however, there are a number of particular problems. First and foremost is that Richard was gay, had no children and spent most of his life outside England. That's why he was succeeded by his brother John.

[Strauss]

300 years is really quite a short time. I have no royal connections but can trace my mother's line to the year 1200. I claim no credit because the work was done by somebody else.

[oldbiddy]

didn't think Richard 1st had any children