Scary ... (ADDENDUM)
Gordon Fisher
>
I show William the Conqueror as 29 generations from me. With William born
1028 and me born 1925, that's an average of about 30.9 years per
generation, or let's say 31 years per generation. Just to start things
off, my paternal grandfather was born in 1841, which gives an average
generational length of 42 years from me to him (my father was born in 1892
when his father was 51, and I was born when my father was 33). My two
children were born in 1957 and 1960, when I was 32 and 35.
ADDENDUM: I neglected to note that I have two grandchildren, one born in
1995 to one of my daughters when she was 38, and the other born to the
other of my daughters when *she* was 38.
Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
D. Spencer Hines
The 30.9 seems to be "within historical limits."
Merry Christmas.
Spencer
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "The final happiness of man consists in the
contemplation of truth....This is sought for its own sake, and is
directed to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas,
[1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]
Gordon Fisher wrote in message
<3.0.1.16.1998122...@pop.shentel.net>...
weg...@tiac.net
gfi...@shentel.net (Gordon Fisher) wrote:
> >
>
> I show William the Conqueror as 29 generations from me. With William born
> 1028 and me born 1925, that's an average of about 30.9 years per
> generation,
Any others including lurkers, that can trace ancestry at least ten
generations back with at least 30 year average per generation. Be their
ancestors ever so humble or as exalted as some of those already mentioned.
Of particular interest are those that can show position/occupation and
social standing over some of the period at least, for comparative
purposes. I realize some of this might be beyond the charter of SGM in the
strictest sense. If anybody is hesitant to post for this or any other
reason, please email me directly I am very interested in your responses.
Willliam W. Eggers-Pierola
D. Spencer Hines
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "The final happiness of man consists in the
contemplation of truth....This is sought for its own sake, and is
directed to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas,
[1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]
weg...@tiac.net wrote in message ...
Omar...@aol.com
- one to Camilla Guicciardini and the other to Henry Vane, both born in the
1560's and came up with identical generational time spans - 28.9 years to
Camilla from me, and 29.07 years to Henry from me. I'll do some checking to
see if there are bigger spans elsewhere as I'm now kind of interested in this
myself.
Stacey
JKent...@aol.com
Omar...@aol.com writes:
<< I took two lines and neither came to more than 30 years per generation >>
One might suspect that if the generations turn over much further apart than 30
years over time then there could be some missing generations. My generation
turnovers range closer to about 25 than to 30 years. It might be possible to
spot the general time period in which there is a suspected problem with
missing generations by checking by 400 year periods. As a rule of thumb I
expect about 4 generations each 100 years. 12 generations in 400 years would
yield about 33 years while 19 generations would yield about 21 years. The
longer the time period the more suspect 33 years and 21 years would seem to
be.
Jno
D. Spencer Hines
Gibberish.
There is nothing magic about the figure of 25 or 30 years for the
length of a generation.
Different strokes for different genealogical lines.
The search for simple and immutable rules-of-thumb is one of the fond
pastimes of folks who find the complexities of real thinking just too
confusing --- and avoid it.
D. Spencer Hines
Sol Remedium Optimum Est
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "The final happiness of man consists in the
contemplation of truth....This is sought for its own sake, and is
directed to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas,
[1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]
JKent...@aol.com wrote in message ...
D. Spencer Hines
William Arthur Philip Louis [Prince William] was born in 1982 [21
Jun]. William The Conqueror [c. 1027-1086] was born circa 1027.
William The Conqueror is the 24th Great-Grandfather of Prince William,
among many other relationships.
1982 - 1027 = 955 years
955 divided by 26 = 36.73 years per generation.
There are no missing generations between the two Williams in this
direct line.
Others will, no doubt, find even more egregious examples.
So the "suspicion" that:
> One might suspect that if the generations turn over much further
> apart than 30 years over time then there could be some missing
> generations....<snip of irrelevant material> The longer the time
> period the more suspect 33 years and 21 years would seem to
> be.
>
>Jno
Is pure Gibberish.
Caveat Lector.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Omar...@aol.com
>Vide infra pro risibus.
Aw, do we have to go through all those Latin lessons again?? I've missed too
many classes to ever catch up.
>Gibberish.
Yes, Latin sounds like gibberish to those of us who don't yet understand it.
>There is nothing magic about the figure of 25 or 30 years for the
>length of a generation.
For me the magic is in finding out who these long dead family members were and
bringing them to life. Say, have any of you seen my Necronomicon book? I've
forgotten where I left it.
>Different strokes for different genealogical lines.
Agreed.
>The search for simple and immutable rules-of-thumb is one of the fond
>pastimes of folks who find the complexities of real thinking just too
>confusing --- and avoid it.
Hmmm...it seems to me that human beings are simply creatures of organization
and categorization. Look at previous posts about how to define a decade or
when a century starts. Look at the fact that we have put names to periods of
time i.e. Ancient, Medieval, Victorian, Modern. I agree that nothing is that
simple, but I think it's human nature to try to make it so. And as far as
avoiding the "complexities of real thinking", I hope I wasn't included in
that.... I like deep thinking myself, however, if I immersed myself in it day
in, day out without occasionally letting my mind wander through lesser ideas
then I'd not only be a boor but I'd be bored.
>D. Spencer Hines
>Sol Remedium Optimum Est
Stacey
Errymay Istmascray
Vickie Elam White
> One might suspect that if the generations turn over much further
> apart than 30 years over time then there could be some missing
> generations...
Averages mean just that -- average. Some families will average
more than 30 years between generations, some less than 30.
30 can be used as a starting point, but I wouldn't be surprised
at extremes of 18-40 years. How many of us know of a woman
who has a child at 18 and her child has a child at 18, etc.
Remember, there are many factors that can contribute to the date
span -- was your ancestor the oldest child or youngest, was the
mother a young bride of 16 when she began having children or at the
end of her child-bearing years, were there 3 children in the family or
13, etc.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
Gordon Fisher
Yes, it had occurred to me to discuss the meaning of computing average
length of generations from a person to one of his or her descendants by
taking the difference between two birth dates (the later from the earlier)
and dividing it by the number of generations.
For example, as I observed earlier, I was born in 1925, my father was born
in 1892, and his father was born in 1841. So by the method just described,
we find that 84/2 = 42 for the average length of the two generations from
my paternal grandfather to me.
On the other hand, my father was the 9th and youngest child of my paternal
grandfather and grandmother. I have no data on children of the first 5 of
these children, but the 6th one, George, was born in 1879, and his first
child, Winifred, was born in 1911. Here we find 70/2 = 35 for the average
length of the 2 generations from my paternal grandfather to my cousin
Winifred. The first child of my paternal grandfather was born in 1869. If
we guess that she had a first child when she was 25, in 1894, we get 53/2 =
26.5 as the average length of the two generations from my grandfather to my
1st cousin now being considered. If we guess she had a first child when
she was 30, in 1899, we get 58/2 = 29 as average generational length for
the two generations.
So if anyone wanted to conclude something about longevity in lines of
descent, it looks like one should use something more complicated than the
simple method we've been using, don't you think?
Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
JKent...@aol.com
10265...@COMPUSERVE.COM writes:
<< One might suspect that if the generations turn over much further
> apart than 30 years over time then there could be some missing
> generations... >>
The key word here is "could". All of us need to check, double check, and
recheck our work again. Obviously, one might have a larger than expected
number of either late born or early born ancestors. During the medieval time
period with all the conflicting information one could easily have either too
many or too few ancestors indicated, and it would go unnoticed that an error
might exist if some sort of "average" is not used as a "guide". An average
consists of both high and low numbers. It is not cast in stone that any given
line of descent is "average". To ignore the average as a "guide", though, is
just plain folly.
Jno
Craig Partridge
>Yes, it had occurred to me to discuss the meaning of computing average
>length of generations from a person to one of his or her descendants by
>taking the difference between two birth dates (the later from the earlier)
>and dividing it by the number of generations.
I'm in agreement with Gordon here.
Length of generations is determined by lots of things -- birth order,
conventions about when people married, life expectancies (which varied
by social rank), etc.
That said, if you have a sense of what the average generational length
is for the period and people you are surveying, then a run of several
generations is likely to bring you pretty close to the average. One
can do the probabilities of being descended from, say, the last child of
the last child of the last child of the last child -- the chances get
remote pretty fast (BUT, there's someone out there who fits this
profile -- so again, average lengths are just a clue).
Craig
PS: In one line, I'm 8 generations from 1650. On another line, it is
13 generations.
Gordon Fisher
>In article <weggers-2212...@weggers.tiac.net>, weg...@tiac.net
wrote:
>
>> In article <3.0.1.16.1998122...@pop.shentel.net>,
>> gfi...@shentel.net (Gordon Fisher) wrote:
>>
>> > >
>> >
>> > I show William the Conqueror as 29 generations from me. With William
born
>> > 1028 and me born 1925, that's an average of about 30.9 years per
>> > generation,
>>
>> Any others including lurkers, that can trace ancestry at least ten
>> generations back with at least 30 year average per generation. Be their
>> ancestors ever so humble or as exalted as some of those already mentioned.
>> Of particular interest are those that can show position/occupation and
>> social standing over some of the period at least, for comparative
>> purposes. I realize some of this might be beyond the charter of SGM in the
>> strictest sense. If anybody is hesitant to post for this or any other
>> reason, please email me directly I am very interested in your responses.
>>
>>
>>
>> Willliam W. Eggers-Pierola
>>
>> weg...@tiac.net
>
>circumstances of generations of families having children in their thirties
>and beyond.
>
>In the U.S., in the last twenty years or so it has become more common for
>people to have or continue having children at an older age. Empirically it
>seems to me more common among the more educated and or the upper middle
>class, I was wondering if this might be the case in families with 30 years
>+ per generation averaged over three or four hundred years.
>
>Because in my case it is tracing back within one family, I didn't think of
>it in terms of collateral families. I am using or misusing the term
>collateral to mean my mothers father and his grandmothers father which are
>several families as opposed to my father, his father, his father's father
>ad infinitum which is the direct ascent/descent of only one family. Taking
>this into account my question might not be well served by generations of
>collateral families.
>
>So I rephrase my original question. Does anyone have or know of a single
>family going back at least ten generations with generations averaging 30
>or more years? I would assume that high nobility and royal lines might be
>less helpful than more pedestrian linages, but all are welcome,
>particularly those with occupation and/or other hints of social standing.
>
>Also, for my purposes, I believe that the difference between first or 6th
>child, would not be particularly significant as it would be in a study of
>longevity.
>
>I will be grateful for corrects of my interpretation of collateral.
>
>William W. Eggers-Pierola
>
>
I find the following in a direct line from my elder daughter 14 generations
back to Edward Isaac of Well Court, Kent, England. The left column
contains dates of birth of successive ancestors, sometimes of males and
sometimes of females. The right column contains differences between
adjacent pairs of these dates.
1957
32
1925
33
1892
34
1851 (this is the date of birth of my paternal grandmother,
rather
34 than of my paternal grandfather, which I used earlier)
1817
28
1789
25
1764
29
1735
27
1708
22
1686
33
1653
29
1624
38
1586
37
1549
39
1510
The total years for these 14 generations is 447, and 447/14 = 31.9. You
may recall I earlier found an average generation length from me to William
the Conqueror to be 30.09. I could carry the above line back to medieval
royalty, but perhaps this answers your question sufficiently?
Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
weg...@tiac.net
Reedpcgen
successful, if used at all. Women who were able to bear children often did
until they died in childbirth. A father with young children would marry again.
He could have easily had three wives, the last possibly a younger woman who
had children in his older age. In cases where you have younger children of
younger children by later marriages, lengthened average periods is not
remarkable.
But remember, as you are seeing, an average between about 24 years and 30 years
is most typical. This conclusion was reached decades ago by the Mormons, who
were trying to determine what the default estimated age should be when a birth
year is unknown. Mormons at that time descended in great part from New England
and English stock, hence they had many records to rely on.
I'll cite two instances of extended years between generations from my article,
"The Royal Descent of the Bernard, Corderoy, and Ironmonger Families of
Virginia through the Seymour Family (concluded)," TAG 73(October 1998):294-311:
William Corderoy [no Levi marriage, unfortunately], of Chute, Wiltshire,
esquire, was born ca. 1549, as his age was given as 35 in 1584. This agrees
with the age of his siblings, and his elder brother was born ca. 1540. What is
odd is that, according to contemporaneous visitations and other records, he
only married once, about 1600, to Bridget Goddard, when he was about fifty
years old.
Bridget was born about 1575 (aged 48 in 1623). She was therefore twenty-five
years her first husband's junior. They had seven known children, the last born
in 1611.
There is a SIXTY-TWO year gap between these two generations. Interestingly,
after her first husband's death, Bridget married, by 1636/7, Jasper Mompesson.
Jasper was aged 40 in 1623, or born about 1583, and therefore about eight years
his wife's junior. There were, of course, no children by this second union.
Bridget Goddard was daughter of Edward Goddard by his wife, Mary Kingsmill.
Mary was the youngest of seven daughters, one of SEVENTEEN children (by one
wife). Her father was Sir John Kingsmill, son of the celebrated judge, her
mother being Constance Goring (she survived her husband twenty-five years).
Sir John Kingsmill was one of three children, his father the judge John
Kingsmill dying by 1509 (therefore Sir John was likely born about 1505, give or
take four years).
Sir John Kingsmill was born say 1505, and his daughter's daughter Bridget was
born ca. 1575--not too bad of an average, but since Bridget's mother was the
youngest of seventeen children, the stretch comes between the birth year of her
mother and that of her mother's father.
I applaud a woman who in centuries past can survive the births of seventeen
children (who all survived) to die an old woman.
pcr
William Addams Reitwiesner
>In article <weggers-2212...@weggers.tiac.net>, weg...@tiac.net wrote:
>
>> In article <3.0.1.16.1998122...@pop.shentel.net>,
>> gfi...@shentel.net (Gordon Fisher) wrote:
>>
>> > I show William the Conqueror as 29 generations from me. With William born
>> > 1028 and me born 1925, that's an average of about 30.9 years per
>> > generation,
>>
>> Any others including lurkers, that can trace ancestry at least ten
>> generations back with at least 30 year average per generation. Be their
>> ancestors ever so humble or as exalted as some of those already mentioned.
>> Of particular interest are those that can show position/occupation and
>> social standing over some of the period at least, for comparative
>> purposes. I realize some of this might be beyond the charter of SGM in the
>> strictest sense. If anybody is hesitant to post for this or any other
>> reason, please email me directly I am very interested in your responses.
>>
>> Willliam W. Eggers-Pierola
>
>When I originally asked the question, my motivation was the unusual
>circumstances of generations of families having children in their thirties
>and beyond.
>
>In the U.S., in the last twenty years or so it has become more common for
>people to have or continue having children at an older age. Empirically it
>seems to me more common among the more educated and or the upper middle
>class, I was wondering if this might be the case in families with 30 years
>+ per generation averaged over three or four hundred years.
>
>Because in my case it is tracing back within one family, I didn't think of
>it in terms of collateral families. I am using or misusing the term
>collateral to mean my mothers father and his grandmothers father which are
>several families as opposed to my father, his father, his father's father
>ad infinitum which is the direct ascent/descent of only one family. Taking
>this into account my question might not be well served by generations of
>collateral families.
>
>So I rephrase my original question. Does anyone have or know of a single
>family going back at least ten generations with generations averaging 30
>or more years? I would assume that high nobility and royal lines might be
>less helpful than more pedestrian linages, but all are welcome,
>particularly those with occupation and/or other hints of social standing.
>
>Also, for my purposes, I believe that the difference between first or 6th
>child, would not be particularly significant as it would be in a study of
>longevity.
>
>I will be grateful for corrects of my interpretation of collateral.
"Collateral" generally refers to cousins more or less distant who share
lines of descent.
I did some number-crunching a few years ago, and I found that there was a
big difference between patrilineal descents (father to son to son to son)
and matrilineal descents (mother to daughter to daughter to daughter).
Before I go further, I'll have to add a few definitions to help explain
what I found. The main one is the difference between "generation" and
"interval".
Counting from a person to that person's grandparent, there are three
"generations" (person, parent, grandparent) and two "intervals" (the length
of time between the birth of the person and the birth of the parent, and
the length of time between the birth of the parent and the birth of the
grandparent). In any descent of "n" generations there will be "n-1"
intervals. What we're talking about here is the length (average, maximum,
minimum, etc.) of the *intervals*, not the generations.
I looked at a huge number of ten generation descents, each purely
patrilineal or purely matrilineal. What I found is that, over time,
patrilineal descents would average anywhere from 25.3 to 44.8 years per
interval, with the high point of the bell curve (if you know what I mean)
at about 35.5 years per interval. With matrilineal descents, they would
average anywhere from 21.4 to 34.4 years per interval, with the high point
of the bell curve at about 27.3 years per interval.
Because I was looking at nothing less that a ten generation descent, any
20th Century social changes wouldn't show up, but I found no significant
differences between exclusively medieval descents and exclusively modern
(pre-20th century) descents. I should say that the field of persons I
covered was the highest social classes (Royals, high nobles), and only for
Europe. I included both legitimate and illegitimate descents (as best I
could).
The numbers above are from actual descents, not from hypothesized or ideal
descents, and so they wander all over the place as to birth order of
children through whom the descent is traced, age of parent at marriage,
age of parent at birth of first child, etc.
With patrilineal descents at about 35.5 years per interval and matrilineal
descents at about 27.3 years per interval, I would assume that mixed
descents would fall somewhere in between, but I didn't check any mixed
descents to see what the actual numbers were.
I published further details on what I found, and how I found it, in the
Introduction of my *Matrilineal Descents of the European Royalty*, to which
I refer the interested reader.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."
Omar...@aol.com
>children (who all survived) to die an old woman.
>pcr
Amen, Brother!!
MTaHT
less thorough studies which all averaged between 28 and 32 years per gen. They
included a large number of lines.
This is the first time that I've seen the data broken down to paternal and
maternal lines with enough samples to analyze the distribution (bell shaped or
otherwise). Finally, we have some statistically meaningful data.
For those who would like more annecdotal data: on three of my new grandson's
(b.1998) lines to Wm. the Conq., there were 33, 33 and 34 generations. These 3
lines diverged through St.Louis 9, Eng.Kings Henry 3 and Stephen (Etienne de
Blois) and reconverged on little Jacob. Only one couple in 1600s was repeated.
Giving:
[3 * 973]yr./ [33+33+34]generations =
29.2 years/gen.
Poly has her brackets on <g>.
These 3 lines include a healthy mix of male and female sub-lines.
Thank you W.A.R.,
Mike Talbot
DavidBotts
We all over in Texas fit the historical profile. So do many of the cousins.
Thomas Botts 1674 - Planter
Seth Botts 1713 - Planter
John Botts 1754 - Planter
Joseph Botts 1790 - Minister
William Botts 1817 - Farmer, Tax Assessor and Collector
William Botts 1867 - Farmer, Banker
Charles Botts 1892 - Auditor
William Botts 1929 - Psychologist
David Botts 1956 - Auditor
Stephen Botts 1995 - Future Husband of a Rich Heiress
Dave Botts
"Inspired by the late Ella Botts (Rice) Hughes Winston"<a sly Texas grin>
RE>Does anyone have or know of a single family going back at least ten
D. Spencer Hines
experiment.
We don't even know the numbers of discrete individuals involved in the
"study".
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "The final happiness of man consists in the
contemplation of truth....This is sought for its own sake, and is
directed to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas,
[1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]
MTaHT wrote in message
<19981223110244...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
weg...@tiac.net
for. The only thing that could better your example, for my purposes, would
be non-royal/noble linages because it would reflect bureaucrats and
burghers. I will give an example from my linage, which is burghers and
bureaucrats mainly.
Counting back 10 generation from me in direct patrilineal ascent (no
females as stated below) 324 years from Hinrik Eggers born 1623 to William
W. Eggers 1947 average generation interval is 36 years.I can go back
further, but Hinrik is as far back with uninterrupted birth dates.
With just dates of records (such as death, marriage, property, official
post etc or birth) I can go back to 1286 Johann Eggers (Gen I), founder of
my Eggers Family (the date is not a birth date, it may be the date of an
official act, marriage or any kind of transaction that bears his name) But
I will assume it as his birth date for lack of one (which will detract
something from the average). So we have Johann 1286, to (myself gen 18)
1947 a total of 661 years for 17 generational intervals with an average
of 38.882352941
My only child Marta, was born when I was 43 years old. There goes that
patrilineal descent.
My grandfather Konrad 1861-(2 generational intervals to me) 1947, 86 years
for an average of 43 per generation interval.
My great-grandfather August 1835-(3 generational intervals to me) 1947,
112 years for an average of 37.33 per generation interval
These figures go to your point that, there seems to be very
> little difference between exclusively medieval descents and exclusively
modern
> (pre-20th century) descents.
Any one have others examples?
Your accurate understanding and clarification of my rather garbled
question also is excellent. This excellent is unqualified.
Thank you,
William W. Eggers-Pierola
In article <3682da05...@news.erols.com>, wr...@erols.com (William
Addams Reitwiesner) wrote:
weg...@tiac.net
I assume that this is an uniterrupted patrilineal descent which gives us a
span of 321 for 9 interval generations with an average of 35.66 per
generational interval. I also assume England and the US, but where is the
line of demarcation? You have occupations, excellent.
Thank you again,
Any others please post or email me.
William W. Eggers-Pierola (email weg...@tiac.net)
In article <19981223112352...@ng15.aol.com>,
david...@aol.com (DavidBotts) wrote:
> Hi William:
>
> We all over in Texas fit the historical profile. So do many of the cousins.
>
> Thomas Botts 1674 - Planter
> Seth Botts 1713 - Planter
> John Botts 1754 - Planter
> Joseph Botts 1790 - Minister
> William Botts 1817 - Farmer, Tax Assessor and Collector
> William Botts 1867 - Farmer, Banker
> Charles Botts 1892 - Auditor
> William Botts 1929 - Psychologist
> David Botts 1956 - Auditor
> Stephen Botts 1995 - Future Husband of a Rich Heiress
>
> Dave Botts
>
> "Inspired by the late Ella Botts (Rice) Hughes Winston"<a sly Texas grin>
>
> RE>Does anyone have or know of a single family going back at least ten
Denis Beauregard
soc.genealogy.medieval:
>In article <3.0.1.16.1998122...@pop.shentel.net>,
>gfi...@shentel.net (Gordon Fisher) wrote:
>
>Any others including lurkers, that can trace ancestry at least ten
>generations back with at least 30 year average per generation. Be their
>ancestors ever so humble or as exalted as some of those already mentioned.
My own Beauregard line, with birth year and gap to next
generation.
Denis, 1956
Bernard, 1923, 33
Joseph-Louis, 1887, 36
Louis, 1853, 34
Pierre, 1819, 34
Michel, 1785, 34
Claude, 1757, 28
Charles, 1729, 28
Joseph, 1690*, 39
Andre, 1642, 48
Jean, about 1605*, 37 (21 in worst case)
This gives an average of 34.8 years/gen for the documented
generations. If we include Jean, we get 10 generations
with an average of 35.1. Each gap over 30 except 2.
The birth of Jean is not certain (a small possibility of
2 Jean, cousins, one son of Michel who died about 1605. So,
if we take the worst case, i.e. Jean being 21 in 1642 (he
was major and I think this even means 25), Jean would be
born in 1621, giving an average of 33.5 year/gen.
* = estimated/from notary record, otherwise from birth/baptism record
Denis
--
Joyeux temps des fêtes !
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ Le genealogiste en action
|\ http://www.cam.org/~beaur/gen/index.html
/ | Liste des pionniers du Quebec des dep. 01-13,15-21,
oo oo 23-26,30-34,36-43,45-49,51-55,57-58,60,63-74,77,79-95
D. Spencer Hines
Beauregard [1818-1893] C.S.A. --- of New Orleans, Louisiana?
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "The final happiness of man consists in the
contemplation of truth....This is sought for its own sake, and is
directed to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas,
[1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]
Denis Beauregard wrote in message
<3719248a....@NNTP.hip.cam.org>...
Gordon Fisher
>Gordon
>
>Thank you for your response, do you have occupations for any of those
>listed below?
>
>Regards,
>
>William W. Eggers-Pierola
>> >In article <weggers-2212...@weggers.tiac.net>, weg...@tiac.net
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> gfi...@shentel.net (Gordon Fisher) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> born
>> >> > 1028 and me born 1925, that's an average of about 30.9 years per
>> >> > generation,
>> >>
>> >> generations back with at least 30 year average per generation. Be their
>> >> ancestors ever so humble or as exalted as some of those already
mentioned.
>> >> social standing over some of the period at least, for comparative
>> >> purposes. I realize some of this might be beyond the charter of SGM
in the
>> >> strictest sense. If anybody is hesitant to post for this or any other
>> >> reason, please email me directly I am very interested in your responses.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Willliam W. Eggers-Pierola
>> >>
>> >
>> >When I originally asked the question, my motivation was the unusual
>> >circumstances of generations of families having children in their thirties
>> >and beyond.
>> >
>> >In the U.S., in the last twenty years or so it has become more common for
>> >people to have or continue having children at an older age. Empirically it
>> >seems to me more common among the more educated and or the upper middle
>> >class, I was wondering if this might be the case in families with 30 years
>> >+ per generation averaged over three or four hundred years.
>> >
>> >Because in my case it is tracing back within one family, I didn't think of
>> >it in terms of collateral families. I am using or misusing the term
>> >collateral to mean my mothers father and his grandmothers father which are
>> >several families as opposed to my father, his father, his father's father
>> >ad infinitum which is the direct ascent/descent of only one family. Taking
>> >this into account my question might not be well served by generations of
>> >collateral families.
>> >
>> >family going back at least ten generations with generations averaging 30
>> >less helpful than more pedestrian linages, but all are welcome,
>> >particularly those with occupation and/or other hints of social standing.
>> >
>> >Also, for my purposes, I believe that the difference between first or 6th
>> >child, would not be particularly significant as it would be in a study of
>> >longevity.
>> >
>> >I will be grateful for corrects of my interpretation of collateral.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I find the following in a direct line from my elder daughter 14 generations
>> back to Edward Isaac of Well Court, Kent, England. The left column
>> contains dates of birth of successive ancestors, sometimes of males and
>> sometimes of females. The right column contains differences between
>> adjacent pairs of these dates.
>>
>> 32
>> 1925 university teacher of mathematics (male)
>> 33
>> 1892 accountant (male)
>> 34
>> 1851 (this is the date of birth of my paternal grandmother,
official in the women's branch of the GAR, an organization
for veterans of the US Civil War of 1861-65, since her husband, my paternal
grandfather, was a veteran of that war (female)
>> 34
>> 1817 law clerk (male)
>> 28
>> 1789 wife of a lawyer (female, naturally)
>> 25
>> 1764 wife of a soldier who later became a sheriff (female)
>> 29
>> 1735 wife of a man customarily identified as a captain (female)
>> 27
>> 1708 wife of a farmer who was also customarily identified as a
captain (female)
>> 22
>> 1686 wife of a man *also* customarily identified as a captain;
(female)
>> 33
>> 1653 wife of a merchant (female)
>> 29
>> 1624 magistrate, judge, also identified as a major, e.g. in King
Philip's war of 1675 between settlers from England and certain
Indians; born in England, came to New England with his father
(male)
>> 38
>> 1586 farmer and deputy; born in England, migrated to New England
(male)
>> 37
>> 1549 wife of a man who was born in Little Waldingfield, Suffolk and
died in London, and who owned several manors
(male)
>> 39
>> 1510 of Well Court, Kent; had a manor there (male)
>>
>> The total years for these 14 generations is 447, and 447/14 = 31.9. You
>> may recall I earlier found an average generation length from me to William
>> the Conqueror to be 30.09. I could carry the above line back to medieval
>> royalty, but perhaps this answers your question sufficiently?
>>
>> Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
>
>
In this line, there are 7 males and 7 females, so one has a not very
significant (e.g., due to small sample) "average" distribution of the
sexes. (Cf W A Reitniesner's remarks on getting different results for
average length of generational intervals for purely male and purely female
lines.)
Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
Gordon Fisher
Gordon Fisher
This reminds me of one of my favorite Civil War stories (USA civil war of
1861-1865). Two old Confederate (C.S.A., Southern) veterans of that war
were talking about the old days on the porch of their old soldiers home in
Louisana. One ran on at some length about the virtues of Robert E. Lee,
widely held to be the foremost Confederate general in that war. After a
while the other man leaned back in his rocking chair and drawled: "Oh, yes
-- General Lee. General Beauregard used to speak very highly of him."
Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
Reedpcgen
>wrote:
>Thank you very much W.A. Reitwiesner, this was exactly what I was looking for.
The only thing that could better your example, for my purposes, would be
non-royal/noble linages because it would reflect bureaucrats and burghers.
>
If you want to find fairly reliable non-royal genealogy, check the LDS
Ancestral File and follow a number of lines that are (according to the source
information) input by the Medieval Families Identification Unit.
This unit, before its demise, did two types of vaulable extracts from records.
(1) They extracted all individuals appearing in the various Adels, etc., for
various Continental noble houses. (2) They abstracted all individuals
appearing in printed pedigrees in England for certain families listed in
Marshall, Whitmore and Barrow's Genealogical Guides.
So non-royal, but still noble families, check the list in my account of the
MFIU in _The Library_ (Ancestry Pub., 1988), pp. 709-10; some houses included
are Baden, Egmond, Erbach, Furstenburg, Katzenelnbogen, Radziwill, Rhedey,
Sobieski, Solms, Wolfenbuttel, etc.
For technically non-noble English families (they were still gentry), check
Bulmer, Berkeley, Stanley, etc. Make sure the source information reads
Medieval Families Identification Unit. This way you will have pedigree linked
data of a fairly wide range from fairly reliable sources.
Finding several centuries of accurate non-gentry or non-noble ancestry during
the Medieval period will be extraordinarily difficult. If that is your
purpose, good luck.
pcr
Denis Beauregard
<shi...@worldnet.att.net> écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:
>Have you ever traced a link to General Pierre Gustave Toutant
>Beauregard [1818-1893] C.S.A. --- of New Orleans, Louisiana?
Don't forget to cut what is irrelevant if you reply to this post.
My line is back to Andre JARRET, sieur de BEAUREGARD (from
where the BEAUREGARD come from), the first in the line to
use BEAUREGARD as a family name. Andre is born in 1642 in
Dauphine, between Lyon and Grenoble, i.e. East of France
I have the line back to 1471. The name was JARRET with some
dit names (HUGON and JACQUEMIN) between 1471 and 1642, and
Andre is thus the first of my line to ever use BEAUREGARD
to identify himself. He was also the first to go across
the sea and married in Montreal in 1676. There is a place
in Vignieu (where Andre is born) called BEAUREGARD. There is
also another place, 90 km south, also named BEAUREGARD and
just besides that place, there was a JARRET noble family
living until 1410 (from Allard's bibliotheque). I have not
located any data about that family. All I have are some
traces in 1458 in Roussillon (a town near Lyon, not the
province) and in some places in the area, but no connection
between them. There is also a JAREZ family that vanished
in the 1270s (no male descendant) that descends from Charlemagne.
My opinion is that my family inherited the name from JAREZ,
but we would not be descendant from them.
P.G.T. BEAUREGARD is a descendant of Jacques Toutant Beauregard
born around 1722 in Aunis, which is a French province on the
West Coast. He is supposed to be the descendant of Tider the
Young, who came from Welsh (he was a rebel againt Edward 1st)
and moved to Saintonge (which is just besides Aunis. I have
see no corroboration in France of any relation between those
BEAUREGARD and any other family, while they are supposed
to descend from a marriage in the 1600s of a TOUTANT (descendant
of Tider) with a PAIX de BEAUREGARD wife. They were supposed
to keep the BEAUREGARD name because the line ended there, but
I found PAIX family living after that and never found any
TOUTANT noble family (TOUSTAIN, but not TOUTANT).
Thus far, the 2 lines are not related at all. But we have
common ancestors. See below.
By the way, the general is the son of Jacques Toutant BEAUREGARD
and Helene Judith de REGGIO, that is supposed to descend from a
famous Italian family.
From my notes:
1. Pierre Gustave Toutant BEAUREGARD
2. Jacques Toutant BEAUREGARD, bp 8-3-1789 New Orleans, m 1808 N.O.
3. Helene Judith de REGGIO, bp 8-2-1794 N.O.
4. Louis Toutant BEAUREGARD
5. Victoire DUCROS
6. Louis-Charles-Emmanuel DE-REGGIO, bp 4-12-1759 New Orleans
7. Judith OLIVIER de VEZIN, bp 9-2-1761 New Orleans
8. Jacques Toutant BEAUREGARD, born about 1722, from Ste-Soulle,
Saintonge, was supposed to be in Louisiana under Louis XIV
which makes no sense since this king died in 1715 !
9. Madeleine CARTIER, from Nancre, Saintonge
10. Joseph-Marius DUCROS
11. Wilhelmina-Marguerite WILTZ
12. François-Marie de REGGIO, born Italy (Piedmont, Alba) 1732
13. Helena FLEURIAU, born bef-1740 N.O.
14. Pierre OLIVIER de VEZIN, bn 28 bp 29-04-1707 Aingoulaincourt
(Haute-Marne: 52004), d 1776 N.O., m 1749 Trois-Rivières,QC
15. Marie Anne Joseph DUPLAISSIS dit GATINEAU, born Trois-Rivieres,QC
1720, d 1772 N.O.
16. Simon Toutant BEAUREGARD
17. Marie LANDRAIN
28. Hugues OLIVIER de VEZIN
29. Marie-Louise LEROUX
30. Jean-Baptiste GATINEAU dit DUPLESSIS
31. Charlotte BOULANGER
60. Nicolas GATINEAU dit DUPLESSIS, parents unknowm
61. Marie CREVIER
62. Pierre LE BOULANGER, sieur de St-Pierre, bn 1632 Rouen, Normandy
63. Marie-Renée GODEFROY
122. Christophe CREVIER, bn 1612 Rouen (ancestor of Denis Beauregard)
123. Jeanne EVRARD (ancestor of Denis Beauregard) (parents unknown)
124. Toussaint LEBOULANGER
125. Marie AVICE
126. Jean GODEFROY, sieur de Lintot, from Normandy
127. Marie LENEUF
244. Nicolas CREVIER
245. Anne BASIRET
252. Pierre GODEFROY
253. Perrette CAVELIER
254. Mathieu LENEUF, from Caen, was protestant
255. Jeanne MARCHAND
488. Hugues CREVIER (was a baker)
489. Helene LEVASSEUR
508. Jean LENEUF, bn ca 1530-1544, d bef 28-11-1599, m ca 1566,
bourgeois de St-Sauveur de Thury (Calvados: 14689) (ancestor
of John Dulong)
509. Marguerite LEGARDEUR, d aft 28-11-1599
510. Gervais LE MARCHAND, sieur de La Bellonière et de La Roque, d
bef 28-11-1599, living in Condé, lieutenant de monsieur le bailly
de Condé-sur-Noireau
511. Venote ST-GERMAIN, d aft 28-11-1599
Sources include
The New Orleans Genesis Vol. XVII No. 65 Jan 1978
A CDROM AA:001 (at Salt Lake)
IGI (I know it is not reliable)
Old Families of New Orleans, Grace King, New York 1921
Dictionnaire genealogique des familles du Quebec, 1983
Dictionnaire genealogique de nos Origines, 1998
And I would be interessed in addition French lines for that
family, in particular for the Toutant-BEAUREGARD, de REGGIO,
OLIVIER de VEZIN, LENEUF, GODEFROY, etc. that could be
found in some nobility books (but thus far, I found nothing
in what can be found in Montreal, like De la Chesnaye-Desbois,
d'Hozier, St-Allais, Pere Anselme, etc.)
MTaHT
think that "planter" was a typical English occupation.
Mike
MTaHT
the point of picking the peak, he certainly had multiple lines of data. It at
least beat the 0 or 2 degrees of freedom annecdotes given by others, me
included.
Merry Christmas,
Mike Talbot
D. Spencer Hines
arithmetic average.
One can obtain the aritmetic average by simple addition and division
as well.
We should be very cautious about accepting any "magic numbers" for
intervals between generations, particularly with a run of only nine
intervals.
One of the great sins in Genealogy is to accept a data point simply
because it "fills a blank" and therefore looks better than a blank or
question mark in the record.
We see it here on SGM continually, as well as in other venues.
Mele Kelikimaka,
D. Spencer Hines
Exitus Acta Probat
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "The final happiness of man consists in the
contemplation of truth....This is sought for its own sake, and is
directed to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas,
[1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]
MTaHT wrote in message
<19981223162503...@ng-fb2.aol.com>...
D. Spencer Hines
I hope your eye has healed. Mine are dilated now and I can't see
worth a damn. How precious they are!
Please tell me the real story behind the demise of the MFIU.
Is that character still ripping us off in his "Plantagenet
Newsletter" --- ? Not to worry, I won't go public with it.
Merry Christmas,
Spencer
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "The final happiness of man consists in the
contemplation of truth....This is sought for its own sake, and is
directed to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas,
[1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]
Reedpcgen wrote in message
<19981223151515...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>><weggers-2312...@weggers.tiac.net>
>>wrote:
>>Thank you very much W.A. Reitwiesner, this was exactly what I was
looking for.
>The only thing that could better your example, for my purposes, would
be
>non-royal/noble linages because it would reflect bureaucrats and
burghers.
>>
>
U...@aol.com
writes:
>
> Any one have others examples?
>
> Your accurate understanding and clarification of my rather garbled
> question also is excellent. This excellent is unqualified.
>
> Thank you,
> William W. Eggers-Pierola
>
Here's a bunch of proud farmers and number crunchers [last 2 generations]
Direct Descendants of Hans UTZINGER
1 Hans UTZINGER b: Abt. 1525 Bachenbülach, SUI d: 5-Jan-1590/91 Bötzberg,
Aargau Canton, SUI
2 Felix UTZINGER b: Abt. 1550 Bachenbulach, SUI d: 29-Nov-1624 Bozberg,
Aargau, SUI
3 Hans UTZINGER b: 7-Jul-1593 Botzberg, Aargau Canton, SUI d:
4-Jan-16.... 25/26 Botzberg, Aargau Canton, SUI
4 Hans Jacob UTZINGER b: 8-Oct-1625 Botzberg, Aargau Canton, SUI d:
5-Oct-1690 Baldingen, Aargau Canton, SUI
5 Johannes UTZINGER b: 4-Dec-1659 Unterendingen,Aargau Canton, SUI d: Aft.
1703
6 Johann Daniel UTZINGER b: 7-Nov-1695 Labach, Rheinpfalz d: 1769
Gerhardsbrunn, Rheinpfalz
7 Johann Daniel UTZINGER b: 16-Aug-1732 Gerhardsbrunn d: 1-Feb-1783
Scharrhoff
8 Johann Adam UTZINGER b: 13-Jan-1767 Scharrhof, Rhineland d: 8-Mar-1828
Scharrhof, Rhineland
9 Johann Adam UTZINGER b: 18-Oct-1795 Scharrhof, Rhineland d: 1-Mar-1872
Scharrhof, Rhineland
10 Jakob UTZINGER b: 20-Apr-1824 Scharrof, Rhineland d: 25-Mar-1883
Deerfield, Fulton, IL
11 John Adam UTZINGER b: 27-Jun-1860 Fulton Co., IL d: 15-Jul-1910 Fulton
Co., IL
12 Clifford UTZINGER b: 12-May-1894 Fulton County, IL d: 3-Oct-1975 Hot
Springs, AR
13 Charles Adam UTZINGER b: 10-Sep-1918 Peoria, IL
14 David Brewster UTZINGER b: 21-Jan-1941 Canton, IL
So 1941 - 1525= 416 / 13 = 32
Always optimistic--Dave
MTaHT
affectionately called "Old Alphabet" by his troops, since his name had more
letters than the alphabet.
Merry Christmas,
Mike Talbot, about 5 miles from New Orleans
weg...@tiac.net
Thank you for filling in the occupations. In the couple of replies I have
received that fit my newer parameters a litle better, this same
middle-class bias (the contemporary empirical one) is emerging strongly.
So far there have been about five responses to my original question. I'll
see what comes in the next couple of weeks. If there are enough responses
to jump to some conclusion, I will do so. Whatever happens, I will let the
group know within the next couple of weeks.
I would also like to thank everybody that has sent advice and/or the
requested ancestry.
A very Happy Holiday to you sir and to the whole NG.
Reedpcgen
a problem.
The Medieval Families Identification Unit was a valuable institution for its
purposes. It was initially responsible for everything done for the Mormon
Church (FHL, Ancestral File, Family Group Record Archives) during the Medieval
period. Anyone born before 1500 had to be cleared through them before it was
added to the data bases.
I first became a close associate of the director and people who worked in the
unit when I was sixteen, so I know everything that happened there in great
detail.
The unit was doing a number of potentially very useful projects. (1) They were
combining all the references in Marshall, Whitmore and Barrow's Genealogical
Guides, including FHL call numbers, into one data base. (2) They were
abstracting and pedigree linking everyone in (a) The Complete Peerage, (b)
Bridges' Collins' Peerage, and (c) The Scots' Peerage. (3) They had extracted
tens of thousands of Campbells from all Campbell sources, including records
held only by the Duke of Argyll. (4) They had extracted and pedigree linked
everything from the Adels, Isenburg, etc., which we had at the FHL for most
German, Polish and Hungarian nobility, and were getting into England and other
countries.
A few years ago there was a political shakeup at the FHL. A number of people
were let go. The director of the MFIU was forced to retire. All who worked in
the unit except one were forced to quit or transfer to an unrelated division.
All projects were stopped (the extraction of CP, SP, BCP were just about
completed). The records were withdrawn from those who worked on them in a
secretive manner. It was handled very poorly, and many people called me to see
if anything could be done, but those who caused its demise did not understand
the value to the public of what was being done. Many tireless volunteers who
had spent literally thousands of hours were put out in the cold, so to speak.
This left very bad feelings. Such is life.
Some records were preserved and are on microfilm, but a lot isn't. Then it was
decided that to make the general population of the Mormon church feel more
involved, they would be allowed to send in whatever they wanted for extraction
and input into the IGI and Ancestral File. We complained bitterly, but it fell
on deaf ears. The data base was polluted, so it's even worse that Hull.
What you can find, from time to time, when searching through the Ancestral File
data base is that the Medieval Families Identification Unit is listed among the
submitters. Records they submitted tend to be more accurate. BUT often there
are multiple submitters, so the family group is corrupted. And they were not
as accurate in some English material as they began using many volunteers who
were only using secondary printed sources like the old Genealogist, family
genealogies, etc., not original sources like the Calendars of Patent Rolls,
Close Rolls, IPM, etc. I was just about to teach them how to utilize those
records when things fell apart.
I remember the headaches Frank Smith used to have (before his death) when he
tried to introduce a new way of doing things at the FHL.
pcr
AJones9446
at all now of finding out which sources were used by the Unit when they added a
particular family to Ancestral File?
AJ
weg...@tiac.net
I am sorry for not having responded earlier. I had gone through the
responses recieved and although there were only about 6 generational lines
most of them took two or three emails plus my response to each. I must
have overlooked yours because you are one of two people that gave me most
of the information I asked for in your original email. The other person,
corrected my garbled thoughts so I promptly responded thanking him for the
corrections.
I said most of the information I asked for because although you have proud
farmers and number cruchers, the German occupational title and the source
would make the information even more valuable.
German has many distinct words to narrowly define a German farmer and I
see some of your ancestors are Germans. Thought the Swiss have less
appellatives for farmers, they still use some of the German ones. Below is
a list of different types of farmers in German. Also the source of the
occupations would be helpful.
For example: Abbauer, Abnahmemann, Achtelbauer, Achtelhufner, Achtermann,
Ackerbauer, Ackerbürger, Ackerer, Ackerknecht, Ackersmann, Ackerwirt(h),
Allmendsvogt, Altbauer, Althufner, Amtsfreier, Amtsmeier, Anbauer,
Anspaenner, Artmann, Artmeier, Bauerle, Bauerli, Bauer, Bauerngelde,
Bauernknecht, Bauknecht, Baumann, Baur, Baeurle, Baeurli(n), Behandinge,
Beibauer, Bergler, Bestaender, Bestaendner, Bestanderlasser, Beuerlein,
Bolsmann, Brotlbauer, Bued(e)ner, Buhmann, Bumann, Buw(e)mann, Echterling,
Echtermann, Echtermeier, Einspaenner, Einspänner, Exkolon, Exner,
Feldbauer, Freibauer, Freisasse, -saße, Instmann, Interimswirt(h),
Kabuzenbauer, Kampheuerling, Keuschler, Kirchenmeyer, Kirchschaffner,
Kirchenprovisor, Kleinbauer, Knecht, Köbler, Koebler, Kolon(e), Kolonist,
Kuhbauer, Küher, Kuhhirt(e), Neubuaer, Öchsner, Oechsner, Öconom, Oeconom,
Oekonom, Ökonom, Pachtbauer, Paur, Pferdebauer, Pflugkoetner, -kötner,
Sadelhoefer, -höfer, Sandbauer, Schafmeister, Scharwerker, Schwertbbauer,
Settbur, Spindelbauer, Stavener, Stengelbauer, Stratener, Viertelbauer,
Vollbauer, -erbe, -maier, spaenner, -spänner, Vribunde, Zeller, Zielke,
Zinsbauer,
Again thank you very much, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
D. Spencer Hines
You have not been very candid about that.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "The final happiness of man consists in the
contemplation of truth....This is sought for its own sake, and is
directed to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas,
[1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]
weg...@tiac.net wrote in message ...
Reedpcgen
Unfortunately, though all sources and page numbers were listed on the family
group records they produced (usually using a different color of ink for each
source, so you could determine what information and dates came from which
source), no sources are listed in the Ancestral File, as it was deemed too
costly. That was another much disputed decision.
I had a personal conference with the director of the FHL some years ago, but he
explained it would cost millions of dollars to add "sources" to the entries in
Ancestral File. We had originally wished ancestral file to be a highly
accurate data base, but it was when they decided to let everyone submit
anything they wanted that this became futile.
I'll have to rummage through what's been microfilmed to see what survives from
their collection and what shape it is in. Another great tragedy was that for a
while the MFIU copied all pages of sources noted in Marshall, Whitmore and
Barrow's Genealogical Guides for many surnames, grouping all those pages
(pedigrees, printed accounts, etc.) by surname. I had tried to have these
fiched (a relatively inexpensive process), so people wouldn't have to do it
time and again in the future. But this was vetoed because they said it would
be unnecessary because sources would be listed in Ancestral File (silly them).
Hind sight. Too late.
pcr
William Addams Reitwiesner
>I do trust W.A.R.s descriptions. If he could analyze a distribution curve to
>the point of picking the peak, he certainly had multiple lines of data. It at
>least beat the 0 or 2 degrees of freedom annecdotes given by others, me
>included.
Somebody's questioning my descriptions? Oh, I see from your headers:
>References: <75r5vo$j...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
Now I understand.
For the matrilineal descents, I had 3565 observations. That is, 3565
ten-generation matrilineal descents (or ten-generation segments of longer
matrilineal descents) in which the birthdate of the woman at generation 1
and the birthdate of the woman at generation 10 are known with some degree
of accuracy. The mean was 27.3 years and the standard deviation was 2.3
years. I had fewer observations for the patrilineal descents, but that's
to be expected, as my book is on matrilineal descents.
That's all I'm going to say on this topic here. If anybody wants to
discuss it further we can reconvene down the hall in
<soc.genealogy.methods>, where this discussion belongs.
Followups set.
D. Spencer Hines
are supposed to have a mean of 35+ years.
2. There are only nine intervals in each line, which is very short
for statistical purposes. No twentieth century lines were included.
3. The lines selected are very much to a pattern and do not form a
broad statistical sample of all genealogical lines.
4. Hence conclusions should not be extrapolated to other lines in
other situations.
5. As we said at the beginning, do not look for "magic numbers" in
this matter of length of intervals between generations.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "The final happiness of man consists in the
contemplation of truth....This is sought for its own sake, and is
directed to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas,
[1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]
William Addams Reitwiesner wrote in message
<3685a45a...@news.erols.com>...
mjw...@hidden-knowledge.com
>I had a personal conference with the director of the FHL some years ago, but he
>explained it would cost millions of dollars to add "sources" to the entries in
>Ancestral File. We had originally wished ancestral file to be a highly
>accurate data base, but it was when they decided to let everyone submit
>anything they wanted that this became futile.
>
>I'll have to rummage through what's been microfilmed to see what survives from
>their collection and what shape it is in. Another great tragedy was that for a
>while the MFIU copied all pages of sources noted in Marshall, Whitmore and
>Barrow's Genealogical Guides for many surnames, grouping all those pages
>(pedigrees, printed accounts, etc.) by surname. I had tried to have these
>fiched (a relatively inexpensive process), so people wouldn't have to do it
>time and again in the future. But this was vetoed because they said it would
>be unnecessary because sources would be listed in Ancestral File (silly them).
>Hind sight. Too late.
>
>pcr
It was incomprehensible to me that they killed this unit off. I could
only assume at the time that arguments had been made that it had no
valid basis in the religious injunctions, and that resources therefore
should be diverted to other efforts.
The introduction of web-based research, correspondence, and data-base
systems has changed things dramatically. It's not any big deal to
track sources, if you always do it as you create the record; and it's
just very unfortunate that AF has become such a questionable resource.
What I find the most disturbing about the affair is that the
informaton that had been extracted was, as implied, simply thrown
away. ! !
How far did they get with the Patent and Close Rolls?
Mike
U...@aol.com
writes:
> 1 Hans UTZINGER b: Abt. 1525 Bachenbülach, SUI
Notes: Vogt Besitzer of the Herrschaftgutes at Botzberg=Governor/Ruler of the
Kyburg family noble estate at Bötzburg. The UTZINGER family descends from
Bötzberg in the Aargau Canton of Switzerland. The likely ancestors, the
Barons of UTZINGEN, later UTZINGER, and the lines descend from Hans.
Hans is shown as landowner and overseer of the estate at Bötzberg. Hans is
presumably the same named in the Frick Archives of Bachenbulach in 1554 as
having a credit of "6 Mutt and 3 Pence." His father would then have been
Lamprecht UTZINGER, first mentioned in 1516. First mention of the name is in
1421, with reference to one Curie UTZINGER.
2. Felix Utzinger: Notes: Felix is shown as a landowner and overseer of the
estate at Untervogt. Both children and first wife died of the plague in about
1583. His second wife and child also died of the plague. With the third
wife, Elisabetha Spuler, we get our Hans.
3. Hans Utzinger; Notes: Kilchmeir (Over-seer on Church-owned land-Farmer)
4. Hans Jacob Utzinger: Notes: Hofmeyer.
5. Johannes Utzinger: Notes: Came to the Pfalz in about 1690. he probably
came through Elsass and down the left bank of the Rhine. He settled as a
farmer in Labach, in the county Zweibrucken. At that time Labach was
completely deserted. The church, in which Johannes threshed his grain, was
still in ruins from the Thirty-Year War.
There are no documents giving the details of his journey, or telling whether
he travelled with other Swiss.
After his marriage to Eva Catharina Winter on 19 July 1694, he visited
Switzerland once again. This is shown by the existence of a baptismal
certificate issued in Botzberg on 15 February 1702 by the reformed pastor
Brandolph Wassmer. He probably settled his affairs in Switzerland, and took
his inheritance back with him, as many Swiss did at this time.
It has been impossible to find out where Johannes and his wife died, because
there was once again a war in the Pfalz, and many people, including many Swiss
immigrants, vanished without a trace.
6. Johann Daniel Utzinger: Notes: Schneidermeister (Master Tailor) May have
learned his trade in Bachenbulach as many Utzingers in that area were tailors,
and there was certainly connections between the families in the Aargau and
around Zurich. In 1733, he built the Pfeiffer house in Gerhardsbrunn, which
now belong to the Kiefer family, who are also descended from the Utzingers.
7. Johann Daniel Utzinger: Dairy farmer
8. Johann Adam Utzinger: Dairy farmer
9. Johann Adam Utzinger: Dairy farmer
10. Jakob Utzinger: Dairy farmer in Illinois
11. John Adam Utzinger: Farmer in Illinois
12. Clifford Utzinger: Teamster, brewery worker.
13. Charles Adam Utzinger: CPA, Partner with Price Waterhouse
14. David Brewster Utzinger: CPA
Always optimistic--Dave
weg...@tiac.net
I got this less than a minute ago and have only read a couple of lines. I
had a feeling that your line was not some plain farmers as you originally
stated. As a matter of fact this goes directly to my thesis. BTW, what
have you gotten as the translation of Besitzer
Thank you very much,
William W. Eggers-Pierola
G . EDWARD ALLEN
>
> The description of the Medieval Families Unit was interesting. Is there any way
> at all now of finding out which sources were used by the Unit when they added a
> particular family to Ancestral File?
>
> AJ
At the Family History Library in SLC, down on the British floor,there
is a binder, possibly plural, which gives the sources that the Unit used
in its extraction program. If this has not been microfilmed, perhaps
the powers-that-be could be pursuaded to do so. Your local FHC, if
there is one, has forms for requests for microfilming. Filling out and
submitting one of these forms would be a start.
Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
Reedpcgen
>is a binder, possibly plural, which gives the sources that the Unit used
>in its extraction program. If this has not been microfilmed, perhaps
>the powers-that-be could be pursuaded to do so. Your local FHC, if
>there is one, has forms for requests for microfilming. Filling out and
>submitting one of these forms would be a start.
>
>Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
>
>
These binders are cross referenced and multiple. Years ago a list of
authorities/sources was drawn up (Anselm, Stokvis, Isenberg, etc.) and each one
assigned its own particlular number. This was more recently expanded by
extracting a large part (though not all) of the entries from Marshall, Whitmore
and Barrow's bibliographies of British pedigrees and genealogies (Whitmore is
also available as part of the Harleian Society at many libraries).
There are binders arranged by surname (but unfortunately the two binders
listing Continental nobility and houses seem to have dissapeared), binders by
source numbers, binders by call number, and binders by short title reference,
all partially cross-referenced.
BUT, as there are only "submitters," not "sources," attached to the Ancestral
File, there is no way of knowing which sources were used for a particular
family. Even when the Medieval Families Identification Unit is listed as a
submitter, the material may be no more accurate that what was taken out of a
secondary source, such as the old Genealogist.
So, sadly (or happily, if you're adventurous) you have to document each line
you find in Ancestral File, as many are wrong (if not the majority of British
gentry lines traced in that data base, at least at some point in the chain).
pcr
G . EDWARD ALLEN
Could the continental binders be hidden on the European floor?
Kay
Reedpcgen
>
>Kay
>
Hopefully someplace, but since I'm the only one who used to use them, no one on
staff knows what they are anymore. I'm hoping they haven't been thrown out.
They would not be on the shelf, but in a droor behind the desk. They are two
large black binders. All the noble lines in sources like Anselm were grouped
alphabetically by lines and houses, after which appearsa list of the sources
they are included in.
pcr