Oldest Genealogy?
Drew C.
genealogy back... way back. I have discovered some Royal European
genealogy. Most people with this luck would find out that if they are
related to some Ancient (pre-1500's) European royalty, there are related to
almost all European royalty. Now basic research shows that these Kings,
Dukes, Counts, etc. trace their genealogy way back as well. Some trace
theirs back to the famous couple Adam and Eve. Now if you believe in the
story of Adam and Eve, then this is where your genealogy ends. However,
let's say that I don't believe in this story, then were does my genealogy
turn from fact to legend? When do y'all think genealogy starts to become
inaccurate? The 1500's (15 generations), 1500 years ago (40+ generations),
2000 years ago (75 generations), 2500+ (90 generations; you start getting
biblical here), or when?
Thanks in advance,
Drew C.
FREE Genealogy Resources
your claims.
--
Lisa jo
Find your Ancestors at our place: http://www.taken2genealogy.com
We're all about getting the information for FREE!!
"Drew C." <dhc...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Y5zba.34756$5l.10...@twister.midsouth.rr.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/2003
Albert R. Conklin
Only joking, but to hear some one, even from ancient times, traced their
genealogy to Adam and Eve does not sound very accurate. For those of us that
believe in Creationism vs. Evolutionism, they were the first parents ever.
Albert
Lesley Robertson
"Drew C." <dhc...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Y5zba.34756$5l.10...@twister.midsouth.rr.com...
> inaccurate? The 1500's (15 generations), 1500 years ago (40+
generations),
> 2000 years ago (75 generations), 2500+ (90 generations; you start getting
> biblical here), or when?
>
A lot depends on the country involved - some countries are better documented
than others for all sorts of reasons including the fact that damp, negelct,
poverty and warfare do nothing for the survival of records. People are
sometimes very lucky, but in most cases people with families originating in
the UK (for example) are doing very well if they get back to the 17th
century with properly checked and documented research. We have all seen
cases where people have attached their family to one of the richer ones
(whose documents tend to survive better) because the names were the same,
only to find later that the person they were claiming as an ancestor died in
infancy, or had no children. I think that most of us are aware that one has
to be careful with what one finds on the web, but this caution should also
be extended to published (even old) material. For example, look at this
describption of a book being offered by one of my faviourite booksellers
(Benny Gillies http://www.bennygillies.co.uk/ ):
"KNOWLES, GEORGE PARKER A GENEALOGICAL AND HERALDIC ACCOUNT OF THE
COULTHARTS OF COULTHART AND COLLYN. TO WHICH ARE ADDED THE PEDIGREE OF SEVEN
OTHER CONSIDERABLE FAMILIES ETC. WITH A GENEALOGICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ROSSES
OF DALTON IN THE COUNTY OF DUMFRIES.
Printed for private circulation, London 1855. frontis coat of arms, plus
other arms in text, large folding pedigree, the whole work printed on
vellum, one of 75 copies printed. (An elaborate and expensive hoax: The
seven other considerable families never existed. The man who had it
published was of uncertain origin. The man who is believed to have been his
grandfather was a half witted small farmer known locally in Kells as 'Laird
Cowtart'. The place and castle of Coulthart never existed and the arms were
borrowed from the Essex family of Colt and others.[See The Ancestor vol iv
pps 61-80, Jan 1903]. "
Lesley Robertson
dave...@spamcop.net
> Now basic research shows that these Kings,
> Dukes, Counts, etc. trace their genealogy way back as well.
Well, "very far" may differ from "very well", because:
> Some trace
> theirs back to the famous couple Adam and Eve. Now if you believe in the
> story of Adam and Eve, then this is where your genealogy ends. However,
> let's say that I don't believe in this story, then were does my genealogy
> turn from fact to legend?
It depends greatly on what part of the world, and how good the records are.
Norway, for instance, has records back to at least the 14th century online
which include probate records, land transactions, and similar. The data
in them is solid - they're primary records, written at the time, and
the only room for error is if you read the translations rather than the
old Norse. Contrast this to another country where records weren't kept,
or they were lost in war or natural disaster, and you may be lucky to
find records older than, say, 1945.
> When do y'all think genealogy starts to become
> inaccurate? The 1500's (15 generations), 1500 years ago (40+ generations),
> 2000 years ago (75 generations), 2500+ (90 generations; you start getting
> biblical here), or when?
It depends. I have one line that goes back through a bunch of vikings, back
into the first Kings of Norway. Is it accurate? I don't know. Did the
authors of the viking Sagas take liberties? Maybe. Is there any better
evidence out there for those folks in that timeframe? Nope. So, it's in
a separate database, not in my main GEDCOM, and if I print out my tree I
don't include it. But, it's there, it's best-available evidence, and it's
interesting to work on.
Which databases have you been using? Some of them have proven holes and
false links (not the database's fault, some of those have been around for
centuries, probably). Who are you looking for links on?
Dave Hinz
Ghost
<dhc...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
My own personal belief is your geneaology turns mythical around the time
it gets to the royalty section- especailly once it gets past the 1600's or
so...
It has long been well establish that much of the royal families way back
when had their family histories 'self generated' to make them appear more
powerful, more royal, or more destined to rule. If I can prove to you I
am a direct descendant from Adam and Eve, or from Erik the Red, then I am
obviously destined to be your king!
Since there were no birth certificates, no attending physicians during
birth (or even midwives), and most births were at home, there is little
proof of anything. While there may have been some church records kept
back then, relatively few documents would survive to this day.
Yes, I know, there are some surviving, and I am sure someone in here can
verfiy the veracity of this, however, considering the number of ppl being
born and dieing, there are only a small percentage of the records still
around. The further you go back, the fewer records exist.
There is a perfect example of this today in fact. There are many surname
boards all over the place. When checking some of my family surnames I
find lots of family trees. There are soem ppl that think because they
have the same last name, they are automatically closely related. I have
seen a number of trees with my last names and as you go back past the
1800's, they have no first names for the ancestors- they just keep going
back in time generation after generation using the last name only. That
is not a true family tree, nor is it able to withstand scrutiny.
I found my grandfather on one of these trees and I contacted the poster of
this tree asking how we are related. He could not tell me, but assured me
we were related since all of us with the same last name are all related.
That was nonsense. Take that to the next level, and we are all related to
Noah, or to Lucy, so the whole world is cousins. I do not think so.
Albert R. Conklin
records? I have one branch of my tree going back to Villom Larsen b. Abt. 1760
Hidra, Norway m. Marte Tollaksdatter b. Abt. 1771 Norway.
Albert
dave...@spamcop.net wrote:
> It depends greatly on what part of the world, and how good the records are.
> Norway, for instance, has records back to at least the 14th century online
> which include probate records, land transactions, and similar. The data
> in them is solid - they're primary records, written at the time, and
> the only room for error is if you read the translations rather than the
> old Norse. Contrast this to another country where records weren't kept,
> or they were lost in war or natural disaster, and you may be lucky to
> find records older than, say, 1945.
tj verhoef
I couldn't get any further then 1850 all records were burned in a fire. Plus
I am from Indian decent from a family who never enrolled.
My mothers side of the family is a different story.. we are decedents of
pirates...he he he !
--
Theresa Verhoef_______________________________________________________
"Drew C." <dhc...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Y5zba.34756$5l.10...@twister.midsouth.rr.com...
Hugh Watkins
"FREE Genealogy Resources" <news...@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:XmAba.55709$6b3.2...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> When you as the genealogist have no proof (records, documents) to backup
> your claims.
and it takes three independant documents to be 100% certain
eg census showingthe family together
BDM certificates and a parish register
Hugh W
Richard A. Pence
to the "royalty" or "back to Adam" genealogical exercises.
Different people have different objectives. If you are determined
to connect to a "royal line," it is really not that hard to do.
The question is, when you do so, what do you have?
My response is, not a whole lot.
Genealogy has published standards of proof. You can find them on
the Internet at the site of the Board for Certification of
Genealogy and at the site for the National Genealogical Society.
Without going into the nuances of these standards, the short of
it is that once you reach a point where it is impossible to
independently verity the records at hand, that is pretty much
where genealogy ends and mythology begins.
When there are no original records to support the conclusions
reached then the conclusions are not sustainable.
In days past - and perhaps even today - people placed great
significance on being able to say they are descendants of
Charlemagne (circa 1000 in Europe). When you look at the pedigree
of an individual in a society such as this you will see it is
full of first names and missing spouses (both husbands and wives)
and devoid of any source citations beyond the work of some other
person or group. In short, the proof is lacking.
The irony, however, is that if you look at the problem strictly
in terms of mathematical probabilities, it can easily be
demonstrated that any person with any Northern European ancestry
is almost certainly a descendant of Charlemagne - not only that,
but is likely a descendant of his through several of his many
wives! This is true because when you go back 30 or 40
generations, the number of "slots" in a pedigree chart at the
earliest generation is far greater than the number of people in
the population available to fill those slots!
When I ponder "descendants of Charlemagne" my personal belief is
that no one can really definitively establish - in terms of
generally accepted genealogical standards - such a pedigree. This
is true even though it is a mathematical certainty that the
person is, indeed, descended from Charlemagne. Many times over.
As Ghost says below, after a while it is "silly."
Each person researching his ancestors needs to set some sort of
an attainable goal. In my case, my goal is to try to identify all
of my ancestors on this (the U.S.) side of the Big Pond. There is
more to do here than I could ever accomplish - so why wander down
unsustainable and largely mythical royal paths? Especially when
your "research" is mostly a matter of copying what someone else
has done.
The real thrill in genealogy is not in discovering an ancestor's
name on a list of "royal descendants." As I said earlier - for
most people that is relatively easy. The real thrill is in
discovering an old deed or court record which gives the names of
the parents of a great great grandfather's wife!
Regards,
Richard
"Ghost" <us...@user.com> wrote in message
news:user-12030...@1.0.0.3...
dave...@spamcop.net
> I see you have lines back to Norway also. Where can I find Norway's online
> records? I have one branch of my tree going back to Villom Larsen b. Abt. 1760
> Hidra, Norway m. Marte Tollaksdatter b. Abt. 1771 Norway.
Hi, Albert.
For that time frame, you'd be best suited looking for them in the 1801
census.
http://digitalarkivet.uib.no/cgi-win/WebFront.exe?slag=vis&tekst=meldingar&spraak=e
...is a good place to start (watch the line wrap). I don't know where Hidra
is off the top of my head, but the interface at the Norwegian Census site
is pretty easy to use.
The older records, over 18,000 documents covering a period of, says here,
the years 1050 until 1590, can be found online in the Diplomatarium
Norvegicum, which can be found at:
http://www.dokpro.uio.no/dipl_norv/diplom_felt.html
(I don't know if there's an English-language version of this, ask if you
need help).
soc.genealogy.nordic is a great resource that you might find useful,
perhaps someone there will have more direct knowledge of that location.
See you there, perhaps?
Dave Hinz
Richard A. Pence
news:qeIba.23$%67...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> My mothers side of the family is a different story.. we are
decedents of
> pirates...he he he !
Shouldn't that be "yo ho ho"? <g>
Richard
Dwight Sipler
Sounds like perpetuation of a stereotype. Didn't anyone else say "yo ho
ho"? Or is it really an obligate characteristic of a pirate? When
previously honest sea captains turned to piracy, was there a piracy
board that had to rule on their ability to "yo ho ho" in the accepted
manner?
KEEEEKA
don't believe the Bible is fact, how can you use it as a source? Even if you do
take the genealogy aspect of it at face value, how can you say it has any more
validity than what we give (or *don't* give) to oral/family tradition today?
K
Heather
"Dwight Sipler" <dsi...@haystack.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:3E6F81B2...@haystack.mit.edu...
Only if they followed with the line "and a bottle of rum".......grin.
I trust you were kidding......as I am. However, seriously.......I have
been in Henry Morgan's museum/residence in Port Royal, Jamaica......who
later was Lt. Governor of the Island. His 'dishes' were the silver
communion plate and cup from the small church there. And the place
where one would expect a choir to be was made to look like the front of
a ship. Or could have been one for all I know.
Interesting history......pirates, that is. And also in Jamaica is the
place where Horatio Nelson allegedly 'walked' the quarterdeck. And many
other pirates.
I found the following website and have seen most of these things, but it
shows the silver communion plates, etc. And Giddy House.....and Lewis
Galdy's interesting tombstone.......sort of a 'Jonah and the whale'
inscription. He survived the 1692 earthquake which decimated Port
Royal.
http://www.noquartergiven.net/jamaica.htm
Cheers...Heather (this may not be old, but it sure is interesting)
tj verhoef
yes it is very true....My family on my mothers side originated from Portugal
the family names linked are:
Ferria, Veverous, Fria, and DeoSilva. As far as we can tell they are all
from the Island San Miguel.
--
Theresa Verhoef
_____________________________________________________________-
"Heather" <JaneyS...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b4o7gn$22frqu$1...@ID-99845.news.dfncis.de...
Richard A. Pence
basis for the "mathematical certainty." Pedigree collapse does
not reduce the number of "slots," what is reduced is the number
of people available to fill them. Remember also, of the many
thousands in a 30 or 40 generation pedigree chart, only 1 person
has to be a descendant of Charlemagne the theory to be reality.
It's almost impossible for their to be none.
Regards,
Richard
"default" <def...@domain.com> wrote in message
news:5akv6voflorqm3qt4...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:36:00 -0500, "Richard A. Pence"
> <richar...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> >Ghost gives below a reasoned - and, I think, a correct -
approach
> >to the "royalty" or "back to Adam" genealogical exercises.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >The irony, however, is that if you look at the problem
strictly
> >in terms of mathematical probabilities, it can easily be
> >demonstrated that any person with any Northern European
ancestry
> >is almost certainly a descendant of Charlemagne - not only
that,
> >but is likely a descendant of his through several of his many
> >wives! This is true because when you go back 30 or 40
> >generations, the number of "slots" in a pedigree chart at the
> >earliest generation is far greater than the number of people
in
> >the population available to fill those slots!
>
> Well, yeah, but it's fallacious to assume from the comparison
of
> "slots" to number of living people that someone alive today is
"almost
> certainly" descended from Charlemagne - a few well-placed
instances of
> pedigree collapse can really cut down the number of those
"slots".
> Mathematical probability in this instance does not accurately
model
> reality, because of the many factors not included (and very
difficult
> to include, I would think!) in the calculation.
>
> Chuck
>
>
Austin W. Spencer
>
> My own personal belief is your geneaology turns mythical around the time
> it gets to the royalty section- especailly once it gets past the 1600's or
> so...
The base date for English parish records -- the date when they were first
required by law but do not always go back to -- is 1533. If a family had local
standing, it can often be traced in probate and land records for decades prior
to that date. In a number of cases, it can be traced a century or more before
1533. So it's not always that the available data don't support any kind of pre-
1600 pedigree. Read enough articles with titles that begin "The English Origin
of ..." and you get the idea.
More often, before 1533 a point is reached at which kinships can only be proved
by the passage of land tenure, so only those families that had tenure of
significant land holdings can be traced. Many proved royal descents involve men
of relatively undistinguished background who solidified their status by
contracting a marriage with a woman of slightly superior rank. As Jacobus
explains it: "It sometimes happened that a country gentleman somewhere up the
line married a knight's daughter, and by going back on that line, perhaps one of
the knights married an earl's daughter, and once we strike the peerage it is not
difficult to acquire some sort of royal ancestry." (_Genealogy as Pastime and
Profession_, rev. ed. [1968; reprint, Baltimore, 1999], 35) Again, this descent
is frequently traceable to one of the early or middle Plantagenet kings of
England, and on to Charlemagne through that connection.
> It has long been well establish that much of the royal families way back
> when had their family histories 'self generated' to make them appear more
> powerful, more royal, or more destined to rule. If I can prove to you I
> am a direct descendant from Adam and Eve, or from Erik the Red, then I am
> obviously destined to be your king!
Obviously the royals had an interest in such claims, but they also had an
interest in making sure that their claims to heirship could stand, by force
if not necessarily by law. They could not resort to venality *all* the time.
> Since there were no birth certificates, no attending physicians during
> birth (or even midwives), and most births were at home, there is little
> proof of anything. While there may have been some church records kept
> back then, relatively few documents would survive to this day.
Translation: Few families of the era are subject to reconstruction from
direct evidence. That is not necessarily a handicap, or a deterrent, to
those prepared to consider indirect or circumstantial evidence.
> Yes, I know, there are some surviving, and I am sure someone in here can
> verfiy the veracity of this, however, considering the number of ppl being
> born and dieing, there are only a small percentage of the records still
> around. The further you go back, the fewer records exist.
>
> There is a perfect example of this today in fact. There are many surname
> boards all over the place. When checking some of my family surnames I
> find lots of family trees. There are soem ppl that think because they
> have the same last name, they are automatically closely related. I have
> seen a number of trees with my last names and as you go back past the
> 1800's, they have no first names for the ancestors- they just keep going
> back in time generation after generation using the last name only. That
> is not a true family tree, nor is it able to withstand scrutiny.
Common, yes. Unfortunate, certainly. Inherently connected with the "age" of a
claimed descent, no.
> I found my grandfather on one of these trees and I contacted the poster of
> this tree asking how we are related. He could not tell me, but assured me
> we were related since all of us with the same last name are all related.
>
> That was nonsense. Take that to the next level, and we are all related to
> Noah, or to Lucy, so the whole world is cousins. I do not think so.
To be fair, it sounds more like laziness and carelessness than absolute lack of
kinship. I can understand doubting descent from Noah, or from the *particular
specimen* of womanhood whom we call Lucy. But if postulating absolute lack of
kinship just for lack of investigation is not ridiculous, then what is?
Austin W. Spencer
Heather
Indies. My last name is spanish, but there are a lot of portuguese
names in Jamaica. Da Silva, Rodrigues, Da Costa and so on. There are
some of the early Jewish records, as most of the portuguese were Jewish.
As far as I can see, our Spanish line was catholic.......till
great-grandfather 'decked the priest' and was excommunicated. That is
more interesting than nobility to me.......but I have a crazy sense of
the absurd. (G)
Have fun.......I happened to find it via Google just to check out when
Horatio Nelson was on the Island.
Heather
"tj verhoef" <nos...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%bOba.1109$DL2.12...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
sjw7
i am curious why Charlemagne is mentioned so often. There are many
prominent historical figures through the ages but this one is seemingly
talked about much more than the others when it comes to medieval genealogy.
Just curious.
Cheers
Simon Wright
"Richard A. Pence" <richar...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:b4nunm$3tv$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
Richard A. Pence
are connected with most of the royal families of Europe. Most of
them supposedly descended from him.
Richard
"sjw7" <swr...@dontSpamMe.rm.com> wrote in message
news:b4pm5b$pq1$1...@newsfeed.th.ifl.net...
Dwight Sipler
>
> Why Charlemagne?...
Why not? He was a pivotal figure in midieval history and most people
know of him. The mathematical argument
(http://www.oz.net/~lee/Genealogy/charlemagne.html) does not really
depend on who the specific figure was. You could have chosen anyone from
that time (around 800 AD). The only requirement is that the person you
chose must not have died before parenting age.
I did an extrapolation of the argument to later years with the following
results:
Y P G-1 log(Z)
(millions)
800 15 39 -15900
900 18 36 -1660
1000 20 32 -93
1100 25 29 -9.3
1200 30 26 -.97
1300 35 22 -.05
Where Y is the year, P is the approximate population of Europe, G is the
approximate number of generations to that year and Z is the probablility
that a given individual from that year is *not* one of your descendants.
For Charlemagne, (around 800) that number is 10 to the minus 15900th
power, or a decimal point, 15899 zeroes and a one. An extremely small
number. For an individual in the year 1100, the probability is still
0.000000001 that he/she is not an ancestor. Not infinitesimal, but still
fairly small. For the year 1200, the probability rises to almost 10%.
Surely you can find some figure from the period 800-1100 to whom you
would like to be related.
Having said all that, I should note that this is far from being a
rigorous mathematical proof. It is based on statistical arguments which
do not really apply to human behaviour. However, the numbers are so
extremely small that it's hard to say that the argument doesn't have any
application.
Note that the mixing between the nobility and the commoners was small,
but not negligible. Somewhere I saw a reference to the number of
European nobility and in those times it was around 100,000 (sorry I
don't have the reference at hand). If the number followed the general
population figures it was probably within around a factor of two of all
that over the 500 years described above, during which period a given
noble would have had around 50,000-200,000 descendants (assuming 2-4
viable children per generation). From this it seems clear that people
did descend from noble birth to common birth, so it would not be
surprising that commoners would have royal ancestry.
Ken
> Why not? He was a pivotal figure in midieval history and most people
> know of him. The mathematical argument
> (http://www.oz.net/~lee/Genealogy/charlemagne.html) does not really
> depend on who the specific figure was. You could have chosen anyone from
> that time (around 800 AD). The only requirement is that the person you
> chose must not have died before parenting age.
>
apparent genealogy for which I also have a roadmap all the way back to
Charlemagne. I say roadmap, because of the quality and number of
sources. It is hard to know for sure when many of the sources are
based on saga and questionable sources. For now, it is my roadmap to
prove or disprove.
BTW, I believe that Charlemagne is generally referenced as a pivotal
person for royal lineages for a number of reasons:
- Charlemagne was a unifier of kingdoms in northern Europe; the
patrianch of the Carolingian kingdom, seeding German and French kings.
He is attributed to the source of the Saxons who were instrumental in
start of the Brittish kingdoms.
- Christianity was the norm for kings after his rule, the dark ages of
Europe preceeded him.
- Medieval genealogists typically traced Charlemagne back to Adam.
Their methods and sources are arguable, however, it was done. [I have
a source book from the 1400's that I looked up at the Library of
Congress for this obervation, but am too lazy at the moment to look up
the title].
- most middle-age and later royals can trace their lines to him
> Note that the mixing between the nobility and the commoners was small,
> but not negligible. Somewhere I saw a reference to the number of
> European nobility and in those times it was around 100,000 (sorry I
> don't have the reference at hand). If the number followed the general
> population figures it was probably within around a factor of two of all
> that over the 500 years described above, during which period a given
> noble would have had around 50,000-200,000 descendants (assuming 2-4
> viable children per generation). From this it seems clear that people
> did descend from noble birth to common birth, so it would not be
> surprising that commoners would have royal ancestry.
I agree with this "macro" type of analysis of royality->commoner. I
have many instances of this situation from a "micro" point of view.
Many times in my apparent lineage, a king had multiple children. Early
in the millenium (800-1100), the daughters were typically to be used
as tools of treaty by marrying others kings while sons inherited the
kingdom/split the kingdom/or killed ech other over the kingdom. After
a time, it appears that younger sons and daughters became or married
Earls, Dukes, "Greves", etc.; a lesser title. The sons and daughters
of these folk also inherited their land/title but the younger ones may
step down in title and become a sheriff/Lagsmann/jurist/Lensmann or
such title. The many children of a sheriff may end up being a wealthy
farmer or such.
Check http://www.kareldegrote.nl/charlemagne/frame-Charlemagne.htm for
an interesting set of lineges from Charlemagne.
My point is that the depreciation of the title becomes clear as you
look through such a genealogy.
Ken
Annasplace
>ho"? Or is it really an obligate characteristic of a pirate? When
>previously honest sea captains turned to piracy, was there a piracy
>board that had to rule on their ability to "yo ho ho" in the accepted
>manner?
>
>
I hope that comment was tongue in cheek!
Anna
Spam mickg@toto.com Mick Gurling
news:20030318111605...@mb-cd.aol.com...
Actually it's quite hard to say "Yo ho ho" with your tongue in your cheek!
--
Mick Gurling
CT USA
Robert Heiling
It also makes it difficult to drink from the bottle of rum!<g>
> Mick Gurling
>
> CT USA
Bob
Dwight Sipler
>
> ...I hope that comment was tongue in cheek!...
Notwithstanding the other comments, I have already been castigated
(privately) for my failure to make that clear. Let me be among the first
to inform you that your hopes have been realized (at least that one). :D
dave...@spamcop.net
> Annasplace wrote:
>>
>> ...I hope that comment was tongue in cheek!...
> Notwithstanding the other comments, I have already been castigated
> (privately) for my failure to make that clear.
I'm surprised anyone thought that would be necessary. Ah well...
Graeme
However, the name was ariund in 1393 and I have a copy of a will dated then.
The name has been found just after 1200 and again in 800. Nobody as yet has
been able to fill in the gaps beyond the 1494 death.
Graeme
"Drew C." <dhc...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Y5zba.34756$5l.10...@twister.midsouth.rr.com...
> I have been doing research for a few years now, and I have traced some of
my
> genealogy back... way back. I have discovered some Royal European
> genealogy. Most people with this luck would find out that if they are
> related to some Ancient (pre-1500's) European royalty, there are related
to
> almost all European royalty. Now basic research shows that these Kings,
> Dukes, Counts, etc. trace their genealogy way back as well. Some trace
> theirs back to the famous couple Adam and Eve. Now if you believe in the
> story of Adam and Eve, then this is where your genealogy ends. However,
> let's say that I don't believe in this story, then were does my genealogy
lbes...@tampabay.rr.com
abruptly stops. I truly cannot even find a record, or mention of it, prior
to 1595. There aren't even that many instances of the name presently!
With my ancestry, I can travel back to the Plantagenets, which are
essentally the descendants of wealthy Romans. Getting a specific record for
these people is another story. Historians and their works would provide
this documentation.
Going back thousands of years and the families and names being so diluted,
historical works would (at least in my opinion) be as credible as any actual
document from the time.
If you can put the Plantagenets in your tree you come to a problem...
obviously, there is no marriage certificate for William the Conquerors
parents and no birth certificate or comparable christening record for him,
at least that I am aware of.
Loretta
"Graeme" <gjd...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:Fh5ha.1756$1s1....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Ghost
are a number of ppl who claim to trace their family back to 1000, or
before, or the 1500's, Charlemange, Adam and Eve, etc...
How in the world is this documented? Most records from just a few hundred
years ago do not even exist anymore- if they ever did.
How does one document (and I do mean document) one's family tree must past
the last 2 or 3 hundred years (at most).
There were no birth, marriage, or death records kept back then. There
were few church records way back when- and fewer still that survive to
this day!
I mean, I am having a difficult time getting records for the 1800's- here
in the US- nevermind other countries!
I cannot imagine true records exist in most cases further back than that!
True, *some* reocrds exist in some isolated cases i would imagine, but I
would not imagine enough records survive to have this many ppl claiming to
be able to trace back that far- outside of some royal families perhaps.
In royal families, there was (and still is, I suppose) a keen interest
throughout history in documenting the lineage- and even some of those
"records" have to be suspect.
Are ppl just taking a surname and claiming that as their ancestor if they
find a record of that surname somewhere back in time?
dave...@spamcop.net
> I am curious... and this is not directed at anyone in particular... there
> are a number of ppl who claim to trace their family back to 1000, or
> before, or the 1500's, Charlemange, Adam and Eve, etc...
> How in the world is this documented? Most records from just a few hundred
> years ago do not even exist anymore- if they ever did.
Norway has documents going back to the 1200's at least, online. In
my case, I get back to a fellow who bought a certain piece of land in 1358,
and who died in 1397. "Diplomatarium Norvegicum" is a collection of these
documents, and they've been transcribed and translated and placed online.
In that case, the same family still owns that land in Norway, so anyone
who can track their family to the owners of that farm has it back to
the 1300's. I'm hoping to attend the 650-year celebration in 2008.
> How does one document (and I do mean document) one's family tree must past
> the last 2 or 3 hundred years (at most).
Some cultures have a concept of land-ownership rights which involves the same
family owning the land for 4 generations - when this happens, they have special
rights to that land - should it leave the family, if the "new owners" don't
have it for 4 generations, then a descendant of the original owners has
certain rights to by it back. (major, massive oversimplification). These
transactions were recorded by the courts, as they were of course of great
importance. It's not unusual to see 14th century documents, for instance,
which describe it completely.
> There were no birth, marriage, or death records kept back then. There
> were few church records way back when- and fewer still that survive to
> this day!
http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/diplom_visetekst.prl?b=2833&s=395
In this document, for example, three men of the King's court are overseeing
that the brothers Gudleik and Thord, who are sons of Gudbrand, are getting
the probate of their father's goods within the county of Hedemarken.
(rough translation from the Danish summary)
It then shows the old-norse (middle-norse, actually, it seems) transcription
of the original document. In there, we not only have details of which
properties went to whom, we know that the 3 magistrates were Saxe AEinaerson,
(a Priest from Staeinaeberghe), Thiostulfuer Oleason, and Biorn Jfuersson.
Lots of church records didn't start until well after the Reformation,
but court records such as this exist very far back, in countries
which have consistantly valued their historical importance.
> I mean, I am having a difficult time getting records for the 1800's- here
> in the US- nevermind other countries!
> I cannot imagine true records exist in most cases further back than that!
Well, seeing the above, would you agree that Gudleik is a son of
Gudbrand Thordersson? I'd call this a contemporary primary
record (or rather, a transcription of same).
> True, *some* reocrds exist in some isolated cases i would imagine, but I
> would not imagine enough records survive to have this many ppl claiming to
> be able to trace back that far- outside of some royal families perhaps.
There's 20,000 docs or so in this collection. Got any Norske blood?
> In royal families, there was (and still is, I suppose) a keen interest
> throughout history in documenting the lineage- and even some of those
> "records" have to be suspect.
> Are ppl just taking a surname and claiming that as their ancestor if they
> find a record of that surname somewhere back in time?
Probably. Some of us (most, I'd hope) are doing it right,
working backwards one generation at a time, and following the records.
Dave Hinz
Ghost
Dave,
I had little idea those kind of records really still existed on such a
large scale. I mean, I knew some records would exist, but I really did
not think that much.
At least in your ancestry, it is good that the did recognize the
historical importance of such records.
However, still, in most countries, I would still go with the vast majority
of records are gone, if they ever existed at all.
Surely, in many areas like yours, they do exist. But, overall, there is
just so many other countries where they either did not keep such records,
or they would have been destroyed by war, oppressive governments,
destroyed by fires or floods, etc. Hell, look at the 1890 US Census.
Well, I geuss you can't look at it since it was almost completely
destroyed by a fire.
I guess I am a bit jaded too- since most of my research is still here in
the states. It amazes me, for example, that birth, marriage, and death
records in the City of New York- millions of ppl- do not exist much before
the 1870's or therabouts. Soem of my ancestors were born there just prior
to such records being kept.
Elsewhere in my family history, I would have to go to Germany, Ireland,
Russia, and Italy. While Italy and Germany probably have some records
going back a few hundred years, I do not read the languages, so even *IF*
the records were online, unless they are transcribed into English- it
would do me little good right now. As far as Russia- I doubt seriously
records from the peasant towns of the 1800's ever existed at all-
nevermind surviving the governemtns of the Czars, Lenin, Stalin, and the
rest of communism. Plus, I would have no idea what part of Russia to even
begin! As far as Irish side, the name "Robert Montgomery" is just far too
common a name- even only in Inniskillin- where Mary was allegedly born
round abouts 1878. Other than his daughter being named Mary- I know
absolutley nothing more. Do you have any idea how any Robert Montgomery's
with a daughter name Mary there were??? lol In fact, there were tons of
Robert Montgomerys with a daughter named Mary even showing up on passenger
lists coming to America!
Anyway- I hope you enjoy your trip to your ancestral home.
In article <b673g4$27ngq$1...@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de>, dave...@spamcop.net
wrote:
Austin W. Spencer
based can be found in the soc.genealogy.medieval FAQ, under Question 5, "How do
I start tracing medieval ancestors?"
<http://users.erols.com/wrei/faqs/medieval.html#GN5>
The key is usually to establish a lineal descent from one of the few hundred
immigrant ancestors for whom a noble descent has been established by a chain of
documentation in England. Much of that documentation will consist of legal
evidence, which does exclude most people but is far from sparse. A legal
document had to be created for every exchange of property. Even if some of those
legal documents cannot now be found, the archives still contain large numbers of
documents, official or not, that bear upon the histories of locally prominent
families.
Austin W. Spencer
Hugh Watkins
<lbes...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:sZrha.69694$M7.15...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> I know that I can trace my husband's genealogy clearly until 1595 where it
> abruptly stops. I truly cannot even find a record, or mention of it, prior
> to 1595. There aren't even that many instances of the name presently!
> With my ancestry, I can travel back to the Plantagenets, which are
> essentally the descendants of wealthy Romans. Getting a specific record for
> these people is another story. Historians and their works would provide
> this documentation.
> Going back thousands of years and the families and names being so diluted,
> historical works would (at least in my opinion) be as credible as any actual
> document from the time.
> If you can put the Plantagenets in your tree you come to a problem...
> obviously, there is no marriage certificate for William the Conquerors
> parents and no birth certificate or comparable christening record for him,
> at least that I am aware of.
they have his genealogy back to Scandianavia and they were not chistianiesed until later
so no Christenings to record
the royal genealogies of scandanavia go back to the Norse gods and the giants
Not Adam and Eve
Hugh W
Hugh Watkins
<dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:b673g4$27ngq$1...@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de...
> Someone who looks an awful lot like Ghost <us...@user.com> wrote:
> > I am curious... and this is not directed at anyone in particular... there
> > are a number of ppl who claim to trace their family back to 1000, or
> > before, or the 1500's, Charlemange, Adam and Eve, etc...
>
> > How in the world is this documented? Most records from just a few hundred
> > years ago do not even exist anymore- if they ever did.
>
> Norway has documents going back to the 1200's at least, online. In
> my case, I get back to a fellow who bought a certain piece of land in 1358,
> and who died in 1397. "Diplomatarium Norvegicum" is a collection of these
> documents, and they've been transcribed and translated and placed online.
>
> In that case, the same family still owns that land in Norway, so anyone
> who can track their family to the owners of that farm has it back to
> the 1300's. I'm hoping to attend the 650-year celebration in 2008.
>
> > How does one document (and I do mean document) one's family tree must past
> > the last 2 or 3 hundred years (at most).
>
> Some cultures have a concept of land-ownership rights which involves the same
> family owning the land for 4 generations - when this happens, they have special
> rights to that land - should it leave the family, if the "new owners" don't
> have it for 4 generations, then a descendant of the original owners has
> certain rights to by it back. (major, massive oversimplification). These
> transactions were recorded by the courts, as they were of course of great
> importance. It's not unusual to see 14th century documents, for instance,
> which describe it completely.
snipped
In pre christian law you had to be fre of slave blood in your ancetors to be allowed to be a landowner
An old lady in charge of a village museum on the Faroes asked a young villager about his ancestry
when he was a bit vague she said:-
"Are you no better than a sheep ? our shepherds know their sheep's ancestry for five generations back !"
Hugh W
Hugh Watkins
"Ghost" <us...@user.com> wrote in message news:user-30030...@1.0.0.3...
>
> Dave,
>
> I had little idea those kind of records really still existed on such a
> large scale. I mean, I knew some records would exist, but I really did
> not think that much.
sniped AND remem ber to do that please Dave
it is a matter of land ownership
Hugh W
lbes...@tampabay.rr.com
be allowed to be a landowner
This is not entirely the case. After the Black Plague, all of Mideval
culture was turned upside down during and after the first century of Plague.
Oftentimes, if a landowners entire family died, the serfs were the only
one's who cared about claiming the vacant land.
I don't understasnd your classification of pre-Christian law. What
timeframe are you classifying as pre-Christian? Which pre-Christian's do you
mean? Each tribe in each region had different customs that varied
dramatically.
Loretta
lbes...@tampabay.rr.com
imense (and expensive) task of requesting actual copies of electronic files
yet. Not to mention that most of them probably have to be requested in
Dutch and German.
Loretta
"Ghost" <us...@user.com> wrote in message
news:user-29030...@1.0.0.3...
lbes...@tampabay.rr.com
news:b67jqg$2gdca$1...@ID-71976.news.dfncis.de...
Essentially, I know where his father's side of the family originated because
the Norman's were descendants of Viking raiders who settled there sometime
in the early like 5th Century, but I also meant the ancestry of his mother.
I didn't mean his Viking ancestors having church records, I mean both his
father and mother's records. His mother, was his father's 'part-time'
mistress and she was NO where close to nobility, so that part of his
ancestry will have no record. That's all I was trying to impress about
using historical works as a basis for making connections to parents and
other lineage.
Loretta