Bogus Gateway Ancestors
Mike Davidson
to the Ancestral File search page, and was not sure whether
to laugh or cry at the number of erroneous descents there.
It got me thinking about the number of bogus gateway
ancestors which various people have - in my case I can think
of four offhand:
Hannah Lake Gallup
Rev. John Lathrop
John Whitney
Francis Willoughby
Surely someone can beat this?
(So far I have not found a gateway ancestor - I have been
sort of hopeing that I do not have one so I can claim
unsullied genes 8-) - but I expect things will go pear-
shaped if I ever get the chance to research the family of
the g-grandmother who was part of London society.)
Cheers,
Mike Davidson
Dept. of History
University of Edinburgh
940...@coll.sms.ed.ac.uk
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Nathaniel Taylor
<9407990...@coll.sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>Taking a break from thesis yesterday, I made a brief visit
>to the Ancestral File search page, and was not sure whether
>to laugh or cry at the number of erroneous descents there.
>It got me thinking about the number of bogus gateway
>ancestors which various people have - in my case I can think
>of four offhand:
>
>Hannah Lake Gallup
>Rev. John Lathrop
>John Whitney
>Francis Willoughby
>
>Surely someone can beat this?
I'm glad to see the term used. I have advocated for some registry of BGAs
for years. When I finish the book I'm working on now, dammit, I might
just do it myself. Most people who are interested in medieval genealogy
have a few plump ones they learned on. The winner on this list seems to
be that wonderful non-descendant of William the Silent, Anneke
what's-her-name.
Nat Taylor
D. Spencer Hines
Have we ever determined if Humphrey Bogart is a descendant of Anneke
Jans and The Reverend Everardus Bogardus, her husband, who were
married in 1638?
The couple had four children.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Sherlock Holmes took his bottle [of
seven-percent solution of cocaine diluted in water] from the corner of
the mantelpiece, and his hypodermic syringe from its neat morocco
case. With his long, white nervous fingers he adjusted the delicate
needle, and rolled back his left shirtcuff. For some little time his
eyes rested thoughtfully upon the sinewy forearm and wrist, all dotted
and scarred with innumerable puncture marks. Finally he thrust the
sharp point home, pressed down the tiny piston, and sank back into the
velvet-lined armchair with a long sigh of satisfaction." _The Sign of
the Four_ (1889) Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930]
Nathaniel Taylor <nta...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:ntaylor-0309...@dunster-4360.student.harvard.edu...
D. Spencer Hines
Descent_ [BOGARD].
Anneke Jans is reportedly one of these BOGARD's.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Sherlock Holmes took his bottle [of
seven-percent solution of cocaine diluted in water] from the corner of
the mantelpiece, and his hypodermic syringe from its neat morocco
case. With his long, white nervous fingers he adjusted the delicate
needle, and rolled back his left shirtcuff. For some little time his
eyes rested thoughtfully upon the sinewy forearm and wrist, all dotted
and scarred with innumerable puncture marks. Finally he thrust the
sharp point home, pressed down the tiny piston, and sank back into the
velvet-lined armchair with a long sigh of satisfaction." _The Sign of
the Four_ (1889) Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930]
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:7qon1g$e23$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
Kotliar
Mike Davidson wrote:
> Taking a break from thesis yesterday, I made a brief visit
> to the Ancestral File search page, and was not sure whether
> to laugh or cry at the number of erroneous descents there.
> It got me thinking about the number of bogus gateway
> ancestors which various people have - in my case I can think
> of four offhand:
>
> Hannah Lake Gallup
> Rev. John Lathrop
> John Whitney
> Francis Willoughby
>
> Surely someone can beat this?
>
<snip>
Well I am descended from Reb. John Lathrop, but I have learned that the
configurations of his ancestors to be laden with so many errors so I have not
tread much there.
I have limited myself so far to the ancestors of my Ligon, Mallory and Batte
colonial American forebears and their medieval european ancestors. So I have
joined this list to see what I may find (particularly about "false leads").
I have found that my ancestor Capt. Thomas Harris of early Colonial Virginia
was one of those gateway ancestors that turned out to be erroneous that you can
add to your list. He was thought to be the son of Sir William Harris and to
have a long line of illustrious ancestors, including Percys, John of Gaunt et
al, but this has all been proven wrong. He may still have most of those famous
ancestors as he may a cousin of the Thomas Harris (or Herris) who was the true
son of Sir William Harris, but who died in England not VA. Whether this
cousin theory is accurate I cannot say as it remains at this stage, as it has
not advance more than specualtion of one researcher. Unless someone has some
new info??????
I am not sure what unsullied genes are. I have just started reading the list
so I assume this is a quote from someone else?
If one connects oneself with the British aristocracy through a "gateway"
ancestor one finds one's genes to be sullied by a lot of rogues. Of course
they usually make for the more interesting history.
Jay Kotliar
-Still wondering what an "indirect" ancestor is?
Douglas Richardson
Willoughby, I've been working on his ancestry for the
last couple of months. I believe I have established a good
royal line for him. Are you interested in the Willoughby
family? If so, please contact me at my e-mail address
below.
All for now. Best always, Douglas Richardson
E-mail: douglasr...@hotmail.com
Leslie Mahler
>I'm glad to see the term used. I have advocated for some registry of
BGAs
>for years. When I finish the book I'm working on now, dammit, I might
>just do it myself. Most people who are interested in medieval
genealogy
>have a few plump ones they learned on. The winner on this list seems
to
>be that wonderful non-descendant of William the Silent, Anneke
>what's-her-name.
>Nat Taylor
That would be a most impressive effort, as the number of false claims
heavily outweighs the
number of real connections.
In fact, anyone can make up a phoney line, but there are very few who
are doing original work
on early colonists. And it takes a bit of luck to find a connection to
nobility.
You could call your work "The Erroneous Descents of 5,000 Immigrants" or
something similar!
Leslie
Robert J. O'Hara
valuable, and would save people a lot of trouble (especially if each BGA
named was accompanied by a citation to a publication disproving the
descent). I hope some learned person out there will take up the
challenge; it would be a great service to the community.
My BGA is the Massachusetts Puritan John Prescott, whose royal descent
is spurious, so I have read. There are still great stories of him
running around Massachusetts in a suit of armor of his own making,
though; it's possible those are authentic, inasmuch as blacksmithing ran
in the family.
Bob O'Hara (rjo...@uncg.edu)
Genealogy page: http://strong.uncg.edu/gen.html
Tdlstrope
>for years. When I finish the book I'm working on now, dammit, I might
>just do it myself. Most people who are interested in medieval genealogy
>have a few plump ones they learned on.
This would be very helpful. The reason I am in the midst of re-establihsing
all of the lineages in my family tree and documenting them is that my
predecessor was more interested in establishing lines to medieval royalty
rather than exploring the true past. Unfortunately she was more than happy to
pay a great deal of money to do this and fell prey to a genealogist who seemed
to have a bag full of BGAs I guess as long as there are people like her in the
world BGAs will always be around.
T Strope
Reedpcgen
going).
There are over 2,000 names on the Gateway Immigrant ancestor list of those with
claimed (true or false) connections to nobility.
A realistic estimate of when the 'list' will be online is about three weeks.
_The Genealogist_ v. 10, no. 3 has to come out first [it will be on its way to
the printer, which will take a few weeks]. But in additions to the list (with
a few examples of proof and disproof), will be a detailed bibliography of
sources used for original research like inquisitiones post mortem and assize
and eyre rolls.
I call these Gateway Bogus Ancestors [GBA]
Gateway Lemons.
pcr
P.S. Humphrey Bogart is a descendant of the Bogardus line of NY. Quincy Jones
had me look into the ancestry some years ago.
PPS: Doug may have been magnanimous with his drafts with Robert O'Conner, but
he certainly has not dared send anything to me. Robert O'Conner criticized me
by saying:
<< I very recently had the pleasure of meeting Doug, and he was kind
enough to allow me to read through the manuscripts for both the upcoming
books, Plantagenet Ancestry, 2nd edition & Magna Charta Ancestry. I must say
that I did not find Doug to be "pompous" or to possess any similar
personality trait. Indeed he was kind enough to allow me, a virtual
stranger from New Zealand of all places, to read through his manuscripts.>>
If Doug is so magnanimous, then he should surely let me also look at his
manuscript [I am sure David Faris also had something to do with it].
I have met Doug a number of times. We are on 'friendly' terms. I was simply
saying to him that I think it pompous to say, "I have the answer, but you have
to pay for it." If Doug is going to take the time to reply on this list, it is
still my position that he ought to help the reader with some advice, rather
than simply say, "buy my book.' So if Doug is so free with you, see if he will
let you forward it to me before stating I am out of place. ; )
[pcr]
Kay Allen AG
And this is one reason that certification and accreditation of
genealogists were introduced so that you would have some sort of
regulation of the ethics and honesty of genealogists.
Kay Allen AG
Kay Allen AG
Both the IGI and the Ancestral Files are a mess.So the LDS have
instituted a new progham, which, hopefully, will get it right. It will
also help people to have another way to preserve their precious work for
all time. See the familysearch under preservation and collaberating.
Kay Allen AG
Renia Simmonds
http://www.linkline.com/personal/xymox/fraud/fraud223.htm
Renia
D. Spencer Hines
Yes, an index of Gradations of Bogosity should be developed [GOB].
One can then say, e.g., "What's the GOB on this line?"
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Back in steerage [on a Boeing 747, over
Newfoundland] where the package tours go, the fifty-two members of Old
World Fantasy, a tour of eleven countries in seventeen days, are
returning to Detroit and Windsor, Canada. Shoulder room is twenty
inches. Hip room between armrests is twenty inches. This is two
inches more space than a slave had on the Middle Passage." _Hannibal_,
Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 247.
William Addams Reitwiesner <wr...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:37d4a824...@news.erols.com...
> "Robert J. O'Hara" <rjo...@uncg.edu> wrote:
>
> >A web page listing bogus gateways/royal descents would be
*extremely*
> >valuable, and would save people a lot of trouble (especially if
each BGA
> >named was accompanied by a citation to a publication disproving the
> >descent). I hope some learned person out there will take up the
> >challenge; it would be a great service to the community.
> >
> >My BGA is the Massachusetts Puritan John Prescott, whose royal
descent
> >is spurious, so I have read. There are still great stories of him
> >running around Massachusetts in a suit of armor of his own making,
> >though; it's possible those are authentic, inasmuch as
blacksmithing ran
> >in the family.
>
> Point of order: "spurious", as I use it, has an element of fraud or
> deceit. This is not the case with the John Prescott royal descent,
which
> is perfectly good except for one link which has insufficient proof
(see
> *Ancestral Roots*, line 34, for details). That one incomplete link
is
> enough to disqualify the whole line, of course, but that doesn't
mean the
> line should be approached with tongs and Hazmat gear, like some
other lines
> I've seen.
>
> I hope whoever does a "Bogus Gateway Ancestors" website will include
> gradations of bogosity.
>
>
> William Addams Reitwiesner
> wr...@erols.com
>
> "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."
Francisco Antonio Doria
> That one incomplete link is
>enough to disqualify the whole line, of course,
I believe this is crucial: Americans seem to be *very* strict when it
comes to genealogical proof. You need a birth certificate; we don't.
There is a classical 1939 article on Brazilian genealogy and available
techniques by Carlos da Silveira where he deals with indirect proofs for
kinship such as:
- chronological consistency,
- geographical reasonableness,
- onomastic practices,
- plus the presence of the (conjectured) close relatives in documents
that have to do with proven members of the family.
In most cases that's all we have; for us that's enough. As far as I can
say, when a link is proven that way, it is later confirmed when the
corresponding birth certificate is uncovered.
chico
William Addams Reitwiesner
>A web page listing bogus gateways/royal descents would be *extremely*
>valuable, and would save people a lot of trouble (especially if each BGA
>named was accompanied by a citation to a publication disproving the
>descent). I hope some learned person out there will take up the
>challenge; it would be a great service to the community.
>
>My BGA is the Massachusetts Puritan John Prescott, whose royal descent
>is spurious, so I have read. There are still great stories of him
>running around Massachusetts in a suit of armor of his own making,
>though; it's possible those are authentic, inasmuch as blacksmithing ran
>in the family.
Point of order: "spurious", as I use it, has an element of fraud or
deceit. This is not the case with the John Prescott royal descent, which
is perfectly good except for one link which has insufficient proof (see
*Ancestral Roots*, line 34, for details). That one incomplete link is
Mike Davidson
In article <37CFFA3B...@concentric.net>, Kotliar <
ba...@concentric.net> wrote:
>I am not sure what unsullied genes are. I have just
>started reading the list so I assume this is a quote from
>someone else?
I was merely making a tongue-in-cheek reference to the
ancestry (including the greatest number of thieves, rapists,
and murderers to ever grace the earth 8-) I could claim if I
found a gateway ancestor. . .
Cheers,
Mike Davidson
Dept. of History
University of Edinburgh
Mike Davidson
John Steele Gordon
Stratford, Connecticut, in the early 1630's.
He has often been alleged to be the brother of Col. Richard Nichols,
first British governor of New York, and thus the son of Francis Nichols
of Ampthill, Bedfordshire, and his wife Margaret Bruce. She was a
daughter of Sir George Bruce, a descendant of Robert the Bruce, King of
Scots.
This descent appears lots of places, including two Burke volumes, but it
isn't so. Francis Nichols and Margaret Bruce had a son named Francis,
but he was too young to be the same as the immigrant and Gov. Richard
Nichols's will says his brother Francis died in Paris. (See TAG 68
[1993]:113).
Unless something has slipped by me (in which case, please enlighten me,
as I am one of his innumerable descendants) the ancestry of the
immigrant Francis Nichols remains unknown.
JSG
Francisco Antonio Doria
>This descent appears lots of places, including two Burke volumes, but it
>isn't so. Francis Nichols and Margaret Bruce had a son named Francis,
>but he was too young to be the same as the immigrant and Gov. Richard
>Nichols's will says his brother Francis died in Paris. (See TAG 68
>[1993]:113).
Just out of curiosity: how about the onomastic patterns in this Francis' immediate descent and in his presumed ancestors? Recently we had a discussion in one of the Brazilian lists about the ancestry of Francisco do Rego Barros married to Arcângela Furquim. Among his children two of the eldest bore the name of Arcangela's parents, so it was conjectured that the other two repeated those of Francisco's parents. Nearly so: Francisco's father turned out to be was Cosme, like his eldest son, an obvious example of papponymy, but the daughter's name differed from his mother's.
This kind of thing works very well around here. We *always* check it.
chico
John Steele Gordon
>
> John Steele Gordon remarked:
>
> >This descent appears lots of places, including two Burke volumes, but it
> >isn't so. Francis Nichols and Margaret Bruce had a son named Francis,
> >but he was too young to be the same as the immigrant and Gov. Richard
> >Nichols's will says his brother Francis died in Paris. (See TAG 68
> >[1993]:113).
>
> Just out of curiosity: how about the onomastic patterns in this Francis' immediate descent and in his presumed ancestors?
Sergeant Francis Nichols had four children I know of by his first wife,
whose name is unknown, a daughter of unknown name who married Richard
Mills, and three sons, Isaac, Caleb, and John. By his second wife, Anne
Wines, he had a daughter Ann.
His son Isaac, by whom I descend had a flock of children (eleven) all
with standard New England names. There is not a Margaret (not a common
New England name) to be seen among his descendants of whom I have
record, which is to say my line. The first Francis (also not a common
New England name) doesn't appear until his great grandchildren.
JSG
John P. DuLong
> I believe this is crucial: Americans seem to be *very* strict when it
> comes to genealogical proof. You need a birth certificate; we don't.
> There is a classical 1939 article on Brazilian genealogy and available
> techniques by Carlos da Silveira where he deals with indirect proofs for
> kinship such as:
> - chronological consistency,
> - geographical reasonableness,
> - onomastic practices,
> - plus the presence of the (conjectured) close relatives in documents
> that have to do with proven members of the family.
I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with your statement. Americans
do understand and the "Preponderance of Evidence" approach to
genealogical data. That is, some Americans.
Apparently, it is a term too complex for some of us. The Board for
Certification of Genealogists has abandoned the use of the term
preponderance of evidence because it was too confusing and not accurate
enough. See their web site announcement at
http://www.genealogy.org/~bcg/prepond.html. However, they do not
suggest what we should call this kind of research method! The
principles for this method are discussed in several genealogy books used
here in America, most recently in Elizabeth Shown Mills' _Evidence!:
Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian_ (Baltimore, MD:
Genealogical Publishing Co., 1997), pp. 45-47. This approach is also
known in French Canada under "la preuve par présomption." René Jetté
dedicates a whole chapter to laying out its principles in his _Traité de
généalogie_ (Montréal: Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal, 1991),
pp. 281-338.
Certainly, anyone doing any significant amount of research on families
before 1700 realizes that you must rely on all sorts of evidence,
carefully weigh each piece of data's value, and resolve any conflicts
between the data. I do a lot of French Canadian research where the
vital records are very complete and easy to use. This spoils me in a
way. Whenever I do Métis, Acadian, Irish, colonial New England, or
Medieval research, I am saddened by the lack of vital records. I dread
helping my wife with her Southern genealogy due to the destruction of so
many vital, land, and probate records. However, given a lack of
standard sources, you soon learn to rely on other types of records,
chronology, geography, onomastic patterns, etc., as you suggested.
The _National Genealogical Society Quarterly_ often publishes articles
using the preponderance of the evidence approach. I have seen similar
examples in other journals here in America and in Canada.
Unfortunately, too many Americans and Canadians now use no serious
evidence, or analysis of evidence, to back up their claims. If they find
it on the IGI, then it must be true. I do not think abandoning the name
of the preponderance of evidence approach is going to be helpful. It
would have been nice if another term was suggested, like, genealogical
data analysis. Also, there has to be a bigger push to educate
genealogists here in North America about using this technique.
I guess we are too strict when we have to have an official body rule on
what we are to call an approach to our data.
--
John P. DuLong, Ph.D.
Acadian and French Canadian Genealogy
959 Oxford Road
Berkley, MI 48072-2011
Tel.: (248) 541-2894
Web Site: http://habitant.org
D. Spencer Hines
"The Board for Certification of Genealogists, which tests and
certifies researchers in a number of genealogical specialities, will
no longer use the term preponderance of evidence, heretofore widely
used to describe how genealogists analyze and weigh evidence....
The term preponderance of evidence was originally borrowed by
genealogists from the legal system, where it describes the standard of
proof necessary in civil trials. However, genealogy requires a level
of proof for preponderance-of-the-evidence decisions that is higher
than the level applied by the judicial system.
Adding to the confusion, has been use of the term to describe the
resolution of complex evidence problems, but without general agreement
on procedures to be followed or the degree of complexity the term
implies. These factors, led to a board review of evidentiary language
and a consensus that the term should be dropped...."
Well, this is quite clearly a sound decision by the BCG.
For over three years here on soc.genealogy.medieval, I have been
advocating the _Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Standard_, which is much
more rigorous. This is the standard used in criminal trials in the
United States.
The BCG appears to be moving towards this more rigorous standard, but
wants to specify in detail, chapter and verse, precisely how different
kinds of evidence should be treated and judged and the procedures to
be followed
Obviously, it will take some time and hard work to do that. So, the
decision not to put out some half-baked flakey guidelines, ginned up
on the spur of the moment, at this point is also a sound one.
Congratulations to these folks. They obviously have their heads
screwed on right and are proceeding according to plan. If we watch
them and pay attention we should be able to learn something of value.
> I do not think abandoning the name
> of the preponderance of evidence approach is going to be helpful.
It
> would have been nice if another term was suggested, like,
genealogical
> data analysis. Also, there has to be a bigger push to educate
> genealogists here in North America about using this technique.
>
> I guess we are too strict when we have to have an official body rule
on
> what we are to call an approach to our data.
At least we can move away from the sort of errant gibberish
regurgitated by John P. DuLong in the two paragraphs immediately
above. Why is it that Ph.D.'s in Sociology are absolutely the
flakiest of all --- bar none?
"It would have been nice [sic] if another term was [sic] suggested,
like, genealogical data analysis." [sic]
How's that for a totally content-free sentence? Let's listen to the
Board for Certification of Genealogists and ignore DuLong and we'll
come out fine.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Fortem Posce Animum
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Much have I traveled in the realms of gold, And
many goodly states and kingdoms seen; Round many western islands have
I been, Which bards in fealty to Apollo hold." --- John Keats
[1795-1821] --- Poems [1817] --- "On First Looking Into Chapman's
Homer"
John P. DuLong <dul...@habitant.org> wrote in message
news:37D3FB11...@habitant.org...
Todd A. Farmerie
> I'm glad to see the term used. I have advocated for some registry of BGAs
> for years. When I finish the book I'm working on now, dammit, I might
> just do it myself. Most people who are interested in medieval genealogy
> have a few plump ones they learned on. The winner on this list seems to
> be that wonderful non-descendant of William the Silent, Anneke
> what's-her-name.
I was under the impression that Paul was going to compile a complete
list of claimed descents (or perhaps just claimed immigrants of royal
descent), both valid and bogus, for his APSG web site.
taf
Jeff Manson
>My BGA is the Massachusetts Puritan John Prescott, whose royal descent
>is spurious, so I have read. There are still great stories of him
>running around Massachusetts in a suit of armor of his own making,
>though; it's possible those are authentic, inasmuch as blacksmithing ran
>in the family.
Another Massachusetts BGA is John Dunham. There is a possiblity that
his grandfather married a Wentworth, but it's not proven.
Jeff
Leslie Mahler
Jeff Manson wrote:
> Another Massachusetts BGA is John Dunham. There is a possiblity that
> his grandfather married a Wentworth, but it's not proven.
>
> Jeff
The origin of John Dunham in Bedfordshire was published a few years back
in
"The American Genealogist", so that would appear to conclusively rule
out the
descent from Wentworth.
Leslie