Fw: Fw: Royal ancestry and the next president of USA
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Royal ancestry and the next president of USA
<snip>
> Yes, but apart from this sort of amusing tease it would be hard to think
> of anything less worth knowing than that some nonentity with a funny name
> was also an ancestor of some nonentity with a famous name.
>
> But I suspect it is really the inane compulsion to relate oneself through
> "gateway" nonentities to English and Scottish royalty - especially with
> the mere "recency" of the distant notable ancestor a point of imaginary
> distinction - that makes historians like Katie Stevenson so disdainful of
> genealogy.
>
> Peter Stewart
I do not agree altogether with what Peter says.. I think people trace their
ancestors, never mind who they are. If they find a link to any royalty I
would say great. But I wish the Americans would concerntrate a bit more on
_all_gateway ancestors, whether they have royal ancestors or not, and
whether they are Anglo-Saxon or not. By exposing all (my goodness a very big
job) it could help many more people, than just the _elite_ with royal
ancestors. In my opinion an ancestor is an ancestor full stop.
However, again, language barriers raise their ugly heads, but when we talk
about medieval times, most of the time records are in Latin, and then we
need the _real_ hunters to help those who lack the knowledge of Latin.
With my data base I hope to show that links with other people (who ever they
are) and other countries can be much closer than anticipated. You have
people maintaining I am pure whatever, and when looking into their ancestry
you find ancestors from different countries.
We can now talk about "real Americans" but we must accept that their origins
are elsewhere, unless they are pure bred red Indians. I think people would
accept (as an example) Tom Hans as being well and truly American.
In my data base I have (only) 2,128 ancestors for him.Of these
30 - USA
579 - England
160 - Wales
72 - Scotland
75 - Italy
788 - France
57 - Ireland
15 - Austria
51 - The Netherlands
212 - Germany
10 - Russia
27 - Spain
and so on. I could have given a breakdown for George W, but I think Tom
Hanks is more interesting person.
As Tom Hanks himself is not a medieval person, here a few things that can be
told
I have as Gateway (my version) ancestors Richard Quarles, Roger Mallory,
John 'Junior' Quarles,
Then Richard Vaughan (1550-1607) Bishop of London
lots of aristocrats, Earls of Arundel and Buchan, amongst these
Llywelyn Fawr of Wales
Saher de Quincy, Earl of Winchester and Magna Carta Surety
William the Lion, king of Scots
John, king of EnglandLouis VI 'the Fat', king of France
and, of course, William the Conqueror and Charlemagne
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Peter Stewart
"Leo van de Pas" <leov...@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.1237.12067504...@rootsweb.com...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com>
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 10:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Royal ancestry and the next president of USA
>
>
> <snip>
>> Yes, but apart from this sort of amusing tease it would be hard to think
>> of anything less worth knowing than that some nonentity with a funny name
>> was also an ancestor of some nonentity with a famous name.
>>
>> But I suspect it is really the inane compulsion to relate oneself through
>> "gateway" nonentities to English and Scottish royalty - especially with
>> the mere "recency" of the distant notable ancestor a point of imaginary
>> distinction - that makes historians like Katie Stevenson so disdainful of
>> genealogy.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>
> I do not agree altogether with what Peter says.. I think people trace
> their ancestors, never mind who they are. If they find a link to any
> royalty I would say great.
I probably don't agree with myself entirely, Leo - but as I would have to
recall exactly what I had said to be sure, I will never know...
For an instance of the contrast between your sensible approach and that
which so regularly starts thumpingly boring threads titled like this one, I
don't recall your ever starting a discussion about the royal ancestry of an
Australian prime minister or governor-general, living or dead. This would
not occur to genealogists or historians here as worthy of a moment's public
attention.
> But I wish the Americans would concerntrate a bit more on _all_gateway
> ancestors, whether they have royal ancestors or not, and whether they are
> Anglo-Saxon or not.
Hear, hear.
Peter Stewart