Re: Additions to John Kerry's ancestor table
Robert O'Connor
> 3. Thomas Temple (#3668) and Hester Sandys (#3669)--16 Aug. 1586 at
> Eaton Bray, Bedfordshire
>
Hester Sandys (and thus John Kerry) had a descent from Edward I thus:
Edward I
/
Elizabeth = Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford (d 1321)
/
Eleanor de Bohun = James Butler, 1st Earl of Ormond
/
Pernel Butler = Gilbert, 3rd Baron Talbot
/
Richard, 4th Baron Talbot (d 1396)
/
Alice Talbot = Sir Thomas Barre
/
Elizabeth Barre = Edmund Cornwall (d 1435)
/
Thomas Cornwall (d 1473)
/
Sir Edmund Cornwall (d 1489)
/
Anne Cornwall = Peter Blount (d 1527)
/
Thomas Blount (d 1563)
/
Elizabeth Blount = William Clifton, of Barrington (d 1564)
/
Hester Clifton = Miles Sandys (d 1601)
/
Hester Sandys = Sir Thomas Temple, 1st Bt
I hope this is of interest.
Robert O'Connor
Peter Stewart
>>3. Thomas Temple (#3668) and Hester Sandys (#3669)--16 Aug. 1586 at
>>Eaton Bray, Bedfordshire
>>
>
>
> Hester Sandys (and thus John Kerry) had a descent from Edward I thus:
<snip>
>
> I hope this is of interest.
It is, Robert - whether or not the descent in itself fascinates SGM
readers, the fact that Americans care to put on record such connections
between their presidential candidates and medieval English kings is
deeply bemusing, at least to Australians who would mostly be rather
queasy on learning similar details about potential prime ministers.
Peter Stewart
John Steele Gordon
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6rKOc.24850$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Robert O'Connor wrote:
> It is, Robert - whether or not the descent in itself fascinates SGM
> readers, the fact that Americans care to put on record such connections
> between their presidential candidates and medieval English kings is
> deeply bemusing, at least to Australians who would mostly be rather
> queasy on learning similar details about potential prime ministers.
>
> Peter Stewart
Robert O'Connor is, of course, a New Zealander, not an American, so the
interest does seem to extend to at least a part of the antipodes.
Perhaps the difference is that Prime Ministers are merely heads of
government, while Presidents are also heads of state. I believe it is a well
known fact that the Australian head of state also descends from King Edward
I.
JSG
Tim Powys-Lybbe
As remarkable is that most British people, on being scratched, would
espouse republican sentiments. One might add that at least we tried
once and got rid of a king (by execution in case anyone is unaware of
that fact); much as the kings later returned, their powers have now been
emasculated to the point of being little more than tourist attractions.
Yet in the USA, that bastion of republicanism where it is against the
constitution (at least for those in government) to accept honours or
titles from another state, we find the greatest interest in royal
ancestry, even to the point of one person constructing a website by that
name.
Anyone doing the latter in Britain would be regarded as seriously
looney.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Nathaniel Taylor
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
> Yet in the USA, that bastion of republicanism where it is against the
> constitution (at least for those in government) to accept honours or
> titles from another state, we find the greatest interest in royal
> ancestry, even to the point of one person constructing a website by that
> name.
Well, the leading 'lineage society' in the US that references medieval
ancestry (for decades, I believe, the only one) is the one devoted to
descendants of the sureties chosen to enforce the Magna Carta of 1215.
At its founding around a hundred years ago this group appealed
simultaneously to the fascination of a young nation with things 'old',
the exclusionary pretensions of Anglo-American WASPs in the face of the
influx of recent immigrants, and a desire to venerate anything created
with what was seen as the evolution of democratic institutions and
ideals.
In the last decades Gary Roberts, and now Faris and Richardson, have
done much to promote the syndrome of tracing 'royal ancestry'. At least
Gary has conceived the idea of a royal descent as a sort of proxy for a
larger, diverse and more interesting medieval ancestry. But this
conception is lost on many who are titillated by the royal connection
without any understanding of its true role.
Nat Taylor
Doug McDonald
>
> In the last decades Gary Roberts, and now Faris and Richardson, have
> done much to promote the syndrome of tracing 'royal ancestry'. At least
> Gary has conceived the idea of a royal descent as a sort of proxy for a
> larger, diverse and more interesting medieval ancestry.
But anyone who has a medieval royal ancestry has a known large and
diverse medieval ancestry!
Do you mean a large and diverse medieval ancestry that is leads to
no royalty? Lots of people have that too ... I sure do. For example,
my Fitzhugh line, while not leading to royalty has some very
interesting people in it ... maltsters and a close relative of
Elizabeth I's doctor. My Latham line were falconers to a long
line of nobles and to Charles II, and my ancestor's brother
wrote the book on falconry. A leading candidate for the
father of William Dungan, perfumer of London, caused a sensation
when he .... a plasterer .... and an actor (!) ... a mere ACTOR!!!
... were knighted at the same time by Elizabeth I. Actor's name
was Shakespeare. Plasterer's ceilings are still famous.
Doug McDonald
John Steele Gordon
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-BD...@news01.east.earthlink.net...
> Well, the leading 'lineage society' in the US that references medieval
> ancestry (for decades, I believe, the only one) is the one devoted to
> descendants of the sureties chosen to enforce the Magna Carta of 1215.
> At its founding around a hundred years ago this group appealed
> simultaneously to the fascination of a young nation with things 'old',
> the exclusionary pretensions of Anglo-American WASPs in the face of the
> influx of recent immigrants, and a desire to venerate anything created
> with what was seen as the evolution of democratic institutions and
> ideals.
The oldest genealogical society in the world, I believe, is the NEHGR,
founded in 1847. The reason usually given is that New England, which had
seen little immigration of emigration since the end of the Great Migration
two hundred years earlier, was suddenly in flux, with the New England
diaspora already well under way with the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825,
and large numbers of Irish and others beginning to appear. We forget what a
"heaving, tumbling age" (James Gordon Bennett) the first half of the 19th
century seemed to its inhabitants.
>
> In the last decades Gary Roberts, and now Faris and Richardson, have
> done much to promote the syndrome of tracing 'royal ancestry'. At least
> Gary has conceived the idea of a royal descent as a sort of proxy for a
> larger, diverse and more interesting medieval ancestry. But this
> conception is lost on many who are titillated by the royal connection
> without any understanding of its true role.
It seems to me that royal ancestries are to genealogy a bit like what holes
in one are to golf. No one with a grain of sense plays the game in order to
hit one. But if someone does, he's going to talk about it quite a lot.
John Steele Gordon
"Doug McDonald" <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cegahr$r92$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
> A leading candidate for the
> father of William Dungan, perfumer of London, caused a sensation
> when he .... a plasterer .... and an actor (!) ... a mere ACTOR!!!
> ... were knighted at the same time by Elizabeth I. Actor's name
> was Shakespeare. Plasterer's ceilings are still famous.
I don't think Shakespeare was ever knighted. He had a coat of arms, however,
granted to his father in 1596: or, on a bend sable a spear of the first,
steeled argent.
JSG
Denis Beauregard
<ance...@optonline.net> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
>It seems to me that royal ancestries are to genealogy a bit like what holes
>in one are to golf. No one with a grain of sense plays the game in order to
>hit one. But if someone does, he's going to talk about it quite a lot.
Actually, it depends on where your ancestors lived, their
background and the number of studies covering everybody in their
area.
In France, for example, nobility had a lot of privileges until the
revolution (in the 1790s). So, to keep their privileges, nobles
tried to marry in the same social class and as a result, it is only
since 2 centuries that the noble and not noble are cmmonly
inter-married.
I don't know for England, but it seems to be similar except they
had no revolution.
In the early New World, commoners and noble lived together. Because
of place availability, a lot of nobles had large families so that
it became more frequent to have inter-marriages. Also, because the
number of migrants in the early centuries are rather small compared
to the population of Europe at the same time, it is quite easy to do
a search among everybody while in Europe, it is not as easy.
As a result, someone in North America will more likely have royal
ancestors than someone in Europe. Perhaps still the hole in one,
but the hole is then large as a golf course !
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ www.francogene.com
|\ >>Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<<
/ | Société généalogique canadienne-française
oo oo Mon association a 60 ans en 2003 ! - www.sgcf.com
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:19:06 GMT, "John Steele Gordon"
> <ance...@optonline.net> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
>
> >It seems to me that royal ancestries are to genealogy a bit like
> >what holes in one are to golf. No one with a grain of sense plays
> >the game in order to hit one. But if someone does, he's going to
> >talk about it quite a lot.
>
> Actually, it depends on where your ancestors lived, their
> background and the number of studies covering everybody in their
> area.
>
> In France, for example, nobility had a lot of privileges until the
> revolution (in the 1790s). So, to keep their privileges, nobles
> tried to marry in the same social class and as a result, it is only
> since 2 centuries that the noble and not noble are cmmonly
> inter-married.
>
> I don't know for England, but it seems to be similar except they
> had no revolution.
Eh?
No revolution! Our was long before the rest of Europe. Parliament
went to war with the king (or vice versa). The king lost and after more
trouble-making on his part, Parliament tried and then executed him, in
1653.
Since then the sovereigns have been invited in by Parliament and more
and more Parliament has come to rule the country. Certainly for at
least a hundred years the sovereigns have had no significant powers and
they had very little in the previous hundred years too.
(Apologies for treading outside the bounds of the medieval period.)
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> It seems to me that royal ancestries are to genealogy a bit like what
> holes in one are to golf. No one with a grain of sense plays the game
> in order to hit one. But if someone does, he's going to talk about it
> quite a lot.
This is the difference between the two sides of the pond: on the east
side, we would keep our mouths shut about that. On the west side, the
side that threw out all monarchy, for some reason it is something to
make a noise about. I still cannot see how it fits in with the spirit
of the 1776 revolution.
John Steele Gordon
"Denis Beauregard" <n...@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i0gng0543iiu8b8b2...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:19:06 GMT, "John Steele Gordon"
> <ance...@optonline.net> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
>
> >It seems to me that royal ancestries are to genealogy a bit like what
holes
> >in one are to golf. No one with a grain of sense plays the game in order
to
> >hit one. But if someone does, he's going to talk about it quite a lot.
>
> Actually, it depends on where your ancestors lived, their
> background and the number of studies covering everybody in their
> area.
>
> In France, for example, nobility had a lot of privileges until the
> revolution (in the 1790s). So, to keep their privileges, nobles
> tried to marry in the same social class and as a result, it is only
> since 2 centuries that the noble and not noble are cmmonly
> inter-married.
>
> I don't know for England, but it seems to be similar except they
> had no revolution.
Intermarriage between commoners and noble families was much more common in
England because England never had a noble class. The individual peers were
noble, but that didn't get them out of taxes, etc. If I remember correctly a
peer could not be arrested for debt--which is a good thing or debtors prison
would have been full of them. But the wife and children of a peer were/are
commoners. There is a very long tradition of class for cash marriages, where
a successful bourgeois family marries off a daughter to an impoverished
noble one. (See Shakespeare in Love for a perfect example). This great
social fluidity was one of England's secret weapons in its competition with
other European states for power.
And if England had no revolution, that would certainly be news to Charles I.
JSG
John Steele Gordon
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org> wrote in message
news:f21737d...@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
> In message of 31 Jul, "John Steele Gordon" <ance...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that royal ancestries are to genealogy a bit like what
> > holes in one are to golf. No one with a grain of sense plays the game
> > in order to hit one. But if someone does, he's going to talk about it
> > quite a lot.
>
> This is the difference between the two sides of the pond: on the east
> side, we would keep our mouths shut about that. On the west side, the
> side that threw out all monarchy, for some reason it is something to
> make a noise about. I still cannot see how it fits in with the spirit
> of the 1776 revolution.
It doesn't. But one of America's greatest legacies from the Mother Country
is a very high tolerance for philosophical untidiness. The French have a
perfect fetish for consistency and a fat lot of good it's done them.
As Walt Whitman, one of our greatest poets, explained it:
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself.
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
JSG
Aristotle
newsgroup which I think is improper, I would like to quote
the following from John Locke's book, "Civil Government
Second Essay", which I deem as appropriate for good
governance by Kings, Royalty, and/or other forms of
governance. The same contains a quote from King James with
regard to good governance which quote, in my opinion, is
very insightful.
I am very proud of my royal ancestry but have found no
professional advantage with regard to the same in the USA.
The idea of royal heritage is foreign and inimical to most
Americans (and American culture) (except for the highest
echelons of American society where it is very important).
Mr. C.V. Compton Shaw; Member: National Society Sons of the
American Revolution;National Society Sons and Daughters of
the Pilgrims; the Somerset Chapter Magna Charta Barons, the
Plantagenet Society; the Sovereign Colonial Society
Americans of Royal Descent; the Colonial Order of the Crown
(Descendants of the Emperor Charlemagne); and the
Descendants of the Knights of the Most Noble Order of the
Garter.
LIBRARY OF THE FUTURE (R) 4th Edition Ver. 5.0
Civil Government Second Essay Locke,
John
Scr 182: 225
---------------------------------------------------------
200. If one can doubt this to be truth or reason because
it comes
from the obscure hand of a subject, I hope the authority of
a king
will make it pass with him. King James, in his speech to
the
Parliament, 16O3, tells them thus: "I will ever prefer the
weal of the
public and of the whole commonwealth, in making of good laws
and
constitutions, to any particular and private ends of mine,
thinking
ever the wealth and weal of the commonwealth to be my
greatest weal
and worldly felicity- a point wherein a lawful king doth
directly
differ from a tyrant; for I do acknowledge that the special
and
greatest point of difference that is between a rightful king
and an
usurping tyrant is this- that whereas the proud and
ambitious tyrant
doth think his kingdom and people are only ordained for
satisfaction
of his desires and unreasonable appetites, the righteous and
just king
doth, by the contrary, acknowledge himself to be ordained
for the
procuring of the wealth and property of his people." And
again, in his
speech to the Parliament, 1609, he hath these words: "The
king binds
himself, by a double oath, to the observation of the
fundamental
laws of his kingdom- tacitly, as by being a king, and so
bound to
protect, as well the people as the laws of his kingdom;
and
expressly by his oath at his coronation; so as every just
king, in a
settled kingdom, is bound to observe that paction made to
his
people, by his laws, in framing his government agreeable
thereunto,
according to that paction which God made with Noah after the
deluge:
'Hereafter, seed-time, and harvest, and cold, and heat, and
summer,
and winter, and day, and night, shall not cease while the
earth
remaineth.' And therefore a king, governing in a settled
kingdom,
leaves to be a king, and degenerates into a tyrant, as soon
as he
leaves off to rule according to his laws." And a little
after:
"Therefore, all kings that are not tyrants, or perjured,
will be
glad to bound themselves within the limits of their laws,
and they
that persuade them the contrary are vipers, pests, both
against them
and the commonwealth." Thus, that learned king, who well
understood
the notions of things, makes the difference betwixt a king
and a
tyrant to consist only in this: that one makes the laws the
bounds
of his power and the good of the public the end of his
government; the
other makes all give way to his own will and
appetite.
201. It is a mistake to think this fault is proper only
to
monarchies. Other forms of government are liable to it as
well as
that; for wherever the power that is put in any hands for
the
government of the people and the preservation of their
properties is
applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish,
harass, or
subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those
that have
it, there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that
thus use it
are one or many. Thus we read of the thirty tyrants at
Athens, as well
as one at Syracuse; and the intolerable dominion of the
Decemviri at
Rome was nothing
better.
202. Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be
transgressed
to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the
power
given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has
under his
command to compass that upon the subject which the law
allows not,
ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without
authority may be
opposed, as any other man who by force invades the right of
another.
This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that
hath
authority to seize my person in the street may be opposed as
a thief
and a robber if he endeavours to break into my house to
execute a
writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant and
such a
legal authority as will empower him to arrest me abroad. And
why
this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most
inferior
magistrate, I would gladly be informed. Is it reasonable
that the
eldest brother, because he has the greatest part of his
father's
estate, should thereby have a right to take away any of his
younger
---------------------------------------------------------
Electronically Enhanced Text (c) Copyright World Library
Inc. 1991-1999
Robert O'Connor
>
> Robert O'Connor is, of course, a New Zealander, not an American, so the
> interest does seem to extend to at least a part of the antipodes.
>
> Perhaps the difference is that Prime Ministers are merely heads of
> government, while Presidents are also heads of state. I believe it is a
well
> known fact that the Australian head of state also descends from King
Edward
> I.
>
>
As indeed does the NZ head of state!
Peter Stewart
Maybe, but all that matters in practical terms is her descent from
Electress Sophia, of whom most Australians have never heard. There is no
medieval magic to her status in this country, not even the bogus ritual
& pompous ceremonial shows that are staged in her homeland. Countless
thousands of her antipodean subjects, myself included, could not care
less that they are themselves descended from King Edward I, much less
considering this fact about someone else a subject for public discussion.
The interesting question to me is, How has the state come to be so
superstitiously exalted in American minds that the ancestry of a mere
candidate to be the temporary head of it should be minutely examined for
royal antecedents?
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
interesting curiosity, Peter.
Americans in general are completely unaware of these trivial details --
and don't know who Edward I is -- unless you tell them he was the King
in _Braveheart_, whom they hate.
A descendant of Charles II [illegitimate, of course] is probably far
more interesting.
Perhaps we shall see one of those as an American presidential candidate
some day. <g>
Perhaps....
Spencer Hines
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:HzWOc.25672$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Peter Stewart
> Most of us Americans who take genealogy seriously just see it as an
> interesting curiosity, Peter.
>
> Americans in general are completely unaware of these trivial details --
> and don't know who Edward I is -- unless you tell them he was the King
> in _Braveheart_, whom they hate.
>
> A descendant of Charles II [illegitimate, of course] is probably far
> more interesting.
>
> Perhaps we shall see one of those as an American presidential candidate
> some day. <g>
>
> Perhaps....
Or you might be lucky enough to get a descendant of James II in the
White House, and then you can have the very British pleasure of
dislodging him or her in favour of a German nonentity....
Peter Stewart
Robert O'Connor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6rKOc.24850$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> readers, the fact that Americans care to put on record such connections
> between their presidential candidates and medieval English kings is
> deeply bemusing, at least to Australians who would mostly be rather
> queasy on learning similar details about potential prime ministers.
>
> Peter Stewart
I have never been mistaken for an American before! I am not entirely sure
whether in the current geo-political climate that is a good or a bad thing?
I have no particular interest in the royal, or other lines, of American
political figures, except where such lines overlap my own. In this case
William Clifton, of Barrington Court, Somerset (d 1564) is an ancestor of my
wife.
The purpose of my post was simply to illustrate a royal line which exists
for Hester Sandys and the reference to Senator Kerry was made to keep my
post within the context of the original poster in this thread, John Brandon.
Robert O'Connor
Robert O'Connor
"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:942d5b80.0407...@posting.google.com...
> > Hester Sandys (and thus John Kerry) had a descent from Edward I thus:
>
> a possibility last year. Have you found definite evidence of the
> Blount of Soddington link to the Clifton of Barrington Court and
> Sandys/ Strode families?
>
Dear John
The marriage of William Clifton to "Elizabeth, d. of Thomas Blount, of
Sodington, Com. Worcester" is recorded in the Visitation of Nottinghamshire,
p 18 (Clifton pedigree).
At the same place their children are given as, amongst others, Hester "marid
to Myles Sandis of Lattimers in Com Buckingham Esq Clarke of the Crowne" and
"... ux Thomas Strowde Esq".
The Strode marriage is the one that interests me as this couple are in my
wife's ancestry. It is further attested to in 'The History of Dorset', by
Hutchins, pp 130-1 where Theophilia Clifton is recorded as the wife of
Thomas Strode of Stoke sub Hamdon, Somerset and as the sister of Sir John
Clifton of Barrington. That William Clifton had a daughter called
Theophilia is attested to in his will where she is expressly mentioned,
although at that stage (1562) unmarried.
Robert
Peter Stewart
I didn't mean to be critical of your post, Robert - or indeed of
anyone's interest in the ancestry of political figures. As Spencer
suggested, this is a harmless pursuit. It is also a very curious one, to
my mind, but none the less valid just because I don't understand or
share the motivation for it.
According to reports I've read, Senator Kerry was surprised to discover
some elements of his close ancestry, so I wonder if he has even got
round to dim & distant royal connections or cares tuppence about them.
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
Most Americans haven't done the math. They don't realize hundreds of
millions of people are descended from Edward I -- so they often go ga-ga
out of sheer ignorance.
Kerry SAYS he didn't know the background of his own paternal Grandfather
and Grandmother -- or that his Grandfather shot his brains out in the
men's room of the Copley Plaza Hotel in Boston in November 1921.
There is considerable skepticism about that -- i.e., what John knew and
when he knew it about his paternal grandparents.
Kerry is quite aware of his Mother's background and ancestry.
DSH
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:FcZOc.25879$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Francisco Antonio Doria
Nat,
Your analysis is perfect. All our major lineage books
were written to aggrandize those who already were in
the country in contrast to new immigrant influx.
fa
--- Nathaniel Taylor <nathani...@earthlink.net>
escreveu:
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail agora com 100MB, anti-spam e antivírus grátis!
http://br.info.mail.yahoo.com/
Austin W. Spencer
<nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in part:
>In the last decades Gary Roberts, and now Faris and Richardson, have
>done much to promote the syndrome of tracing 'royal ancestry'. At least
>Gary has conceived the idea of a royal descent as a sort of proxy for a
>larger, diverse and more interesting medieval ancestry. But this
>conception is lost on many who are titillated by the royal connection
>without any understanding of its true role.
>
>Nat Taylor
>
>http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/
If it were just a matter of reducing medieval ancestry to a kind of shorthand,
one could simply name one's gateways to the medieval period and leave it at
that. This is, in fact, what I prefer to do most of the time, rather than
display my relative ignorance of medieval genealogy. I descend from two such
gateways -- Katherine Marbury and Martha Bulkeley. They are both 12 generations
behind me and ancestors in only one line. How much complexity accrues to what
is, in absolute terms, such a small part of my genetic heritage!
Roberts, Faris, and Richardson do more than I have just done, but no more than
Weis and Sheppard did before them. Rather than present an exhaustive summary of
all the medieval ancestors of a New World immigrant, they select the most
visible and exalted figures among the medieval ancestors and present lineages
from them down to the immigrants. Such works usually leave me dissatisfied
precisely because they emphasize designated lineages over complete views of
either the immigrants' ancestry or the families involved in the intervening
generations.
Of course, a work that did give a complete view of the immigrants' ancestry
might not be more useful than the AR or PA series for professional genealogists
and historians. But it would be excellent for those who collect ancestors.
Austin W. Spencer
Ronald Di Iorio
I never really looked at Kerry's line for Irish, or
"Scotch-Irish" ancestry. Other than the initial
generations, I was basically looking for the first
common ancestor, which I find in the Symond's line.
However, after receiving your post I took a another
quick look at the line and noticed number 986, David
Cargill, who died in Aghadowey, Ireland in 1736,
father of Marion Cargill (493) who married Rev. James
McGregor (492), founder of Nutfield/Londonderry, New
Hampshire, an interesting parish in the midst of a sea
of Congregationalists. Of course, these individuals
are more properly "Scotch-Irish" than Irish, if Irish
is understood, as it commonly seems to be, to be a
person of Celtic ancestry that originated on the
island of Ireland and who is, or at least once was,
Roman Catholic by religion. And because of his royal
ancestry, Kerry will pick up the High Kings of Ireland
lines, whatever value you care to place on them.
But the name "Kerry" alone, because it is thought by
many to be Irish, is surely good for a few million
votes.
Ron
--- conaught2 <cona...@charter.net> wrote:
> Ronald,
>
> Does Kerry have any Irish heritage? I thought he
> did not, then during the Democratic Convention one
> commentator from Boston referred to Kerry as Boston
> Irish. Originally I thought he was Irish with the
> name Kerry, then I read his lineage but don't
> remember any Irish heritage. Am I mistaken?
>
> Also several months ago somebody posted some
> information regarding a Dowdall being related to
> Prince Charles. I can't remember the details. Does
> anybody remember this thread. Since I can't remember
> the date or the exact topic it would take too much
> time to go through all the posts in the archives.
>
> Thank you,
> Margaret
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ronald Di Iorio
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 10:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Additions to John Kerry's ancestor
> table
>
>
> An interesting example of this aggrandizement of
> those
> already present as opposed to new immigrants can
> be
> observed in the case of many of the so-called
> "Scotch-Irish" in America. Most of these
> individuals
> had roots in the Borders--their surnames look like
> a
> list of Reiver clans. However, while the roots
> might
> be in the borders, most of the families spent a
> few
> generations in Ireland before emigrating to the
> New
> World. And the immigrant familes were well aware
> of
> this fact, at first often identifying themselves
> in
> this country as being "Irish". However, once the
> mass
> of immigration of Catholic Irish to America began,
> these "Irish" families were first transformed to
> "Scotch-Irish", and when the genealogical
> "mug-books"
> started to appear around the turn of the century,
> the
> connection to Ireland was totally dropped in many
> cases, the immigrant ancestor now coming directly
> from
> Scotland, with no Irish interlude for the family,
> and
> sometimes further transformed into a Highlander.
> Personally, I always thought my Border Reiver
> ancestors were an interesting group. As I like to
> point out, while in the Borders they stole English
> cattle, while in Ireland they stole Irish women,
> and
> when they made it to America they stole the whole
> damn
> country. Oh, and by the way, I do realize that
> the
> correct term should be "Scots", not "Scotch",
> which is
> rightfully reserved for whiskey, but this
> mislabelling
> is the commonly used term, hence the quotation
> marks.
>
> Speaking of "mug-books", does this phenomena exist
> in
> other countries? From the posts I have seen in
> this
> thread from Australia and New Zealand, I would
> suspect
> that they do not.
>
> Finally regarding Kerry's ancestry, he seems much
> more
> concerned with establishing a French connection
> and
> de-emphasizing his paternal Jewish origins
> (probably
> from an obvious concern that they might provoke an
> anti-Semitic reaction) and the suicide of his
> grandfather than any ties to medival nobility.
> After
> all, I would venture that he wouldn't capture many
> votes by pointing out that his 2xth GGF was the
> Earl
> of Someplace. For the record, for any who might
> be
> interested, my sons are more closely related to
> both
> Kerry and Bush than Kerry and Bush are to each
> other.
>
> I apologize for the length of this post which has
> truly wandered off medieval topics, and hesitated
> to
> post for that reason, but consider it no more OT
> than
> some of the other posts that appeared after
> restoration of the service. Thanks for your
> tolerance.
>
> Ronald Di Iorio
>
>
> --- Francisco Antonio Doria
> > > In the last decades Gary Roberts, and now
> Faris
> > and
> > > Richardson, have
> > > done much to promote the syndrome of tracing
> > 'royal
> > > ancestry'. At least
> > > Gary has conceived the idea of a royal descent
> as
> > a
> > > sort of proxy for a
> > > larger, diverse and more interesting medieval
> > > ancestry. But this
> > > conception is lost on many who are titillated
> by
> > the
> > > royal connection
> > > without any understanding of its true role.
> > >
> > > Nat Taylor
> > >
> > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/
> > >
> > >
> >
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Kevin Randolph Hearst
had some Jewish ancestry and it was very interesting to see it
documented. I always thought he was an Irish men. Gen. Clark is
supposedly descended from a line of rabbis in Minsk I've heard. I
looked at Kerry and Edward's lineages and they were very well done. Is
there a main page where I can see all the lineages listed on that
site? For the canidates I just typed in their last names in space, but
I'd like to see what else is on the site, if anything. I'll have to
look at Clark's I didn't type his in yet. Thanks for posting!
__
Kevin Randolph Hearst
www.hearstmania.com
citizenkane1123[erase this gap]@hotmail.com
Quote of the Day
Source: Larry the Cable Guy
"You don't get a belly ring if you're big...you get onion rings."
conaught2
Thank you for the interesting Scots Irish heritage of John Kerry. Both MacGregor and Cargill are Scottish Irish names. They would have been part of the Plantation of Ireland. There are two Aghadoweys in Ireland - County Donegal and County Derry. Since Rev. McGregor founded Nutfield/Londonderry, New Hampshire, David Cargill must have been from Aghadowey, County Derry.
My sisters and I were discussing Kerry's lineage last night and they both thought he was Irish (our 4 grandparents came from Ireland). Your assessment of the differentiation between the Scots Irish and the Celtic Irish is pretty much on the mark. There is an exception - the Normans. The Normans became more Irish than the Irish and are now considered Irish.
Thank you,
Margaret
----- Original Message -----
From: Ronald Di Iorio
To: conaught2 ; GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Additions to John Kerry's ancestor table
Frank Johansen
> A very interesting lineage. I was surprised when I first heard Kerry
> had some Jewish ancestry and it was very interesting to see it
> documented. I always thought he was an Irish men. Gen. Clark is
> supposedly descended from a line of rabbis in Minsk I've heard. I
> looked at Kerry and Edward's lineages and they were very well done. Is
> there a main page where I can see all the lineages listed on that
> site? For the canidates I just typed in their last names in space, but
> I'd like to see what else is on the site, if anything. I'll have to
> look at Clark's I didn't type his in yet. Thanks for posting!
Just remove the name, but retain the slash:
<http://members.aol.com/wreitwiesn/candidates2004/>
Regards
Frank H. Johansen
Frank Johansen
> Just remove the name, but retain the slash:
> <http://members.aol.com/wreitwiesn/candidates2004/>
<http://members.aol.com/wreitwiesn/candidates2000/> is probably also
interesting!
Regards
Frank H. Johansen
Leo van de Pas
especially horses.
Being interested in genealogy, I think it is a pity.
Perhaps, because the USA was colonised a few generations earlier than
Australia and at the same time, with many convicts transported to Australia
it could be dangerous to trace families as that kind of ancestors were
hushed up but recently the tables have turned and it is fashionable to have
a convict ancestor. Also many people have realised that that the "crimes" of
many convicts were trivial.
When people trace ancestors, you can only trace those who left records
behind and those belonging to aristocratic or royal families can often be
the easiest to trace. Many years ago I communicated with a lady in England
who was very knowledgeable about her ancestors but she apologised that she
"was not a headhunter" hunting for Royal ancestors. As far as I am concerned
an ancestor is an ancestors, so what if they have a title? Be grateful if
you can find those as they allow you to trace ancestors even further. Also
they allow you better to visualise history, realising that "your" ancestors
made a difference (for good or bad) to the history of a country.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Di Iorio" <medge...@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: Additions to John Kerry's ancestor table
> _______________________________________________________
> > Yahoo! Mail agora com 100MB, anti-spam e antivírus
> > grátis!
> > http://br.info.mail.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
marshall kirk
[snippage]
> In the last decades Gary Roberts, and now Faris and Richardson, have
> done much to promote the syndrome of tracing 'royal ancestry'. At least
> Gary has conceived the idea of a royal descent as a sort of proxy for a
> larger, diverse and more interesting medieval ancestry. But this
> conception is lost on many who are titillated by the royal connection
> without any understanding of its true role.
Nat's last sentence, specifically, touches on an observation that I
made many, many times during my decade as a genealogical reference
librarian, tho' I generally refrained from voicing it (for fear of
being chased by an angry mob armed with torches and pitchforks).
"[T]itillated by the royal connection ..." Indeed. Our patrons were
a motley bunch, drawn from all walks of life, and representing both
sexes, all ages, the whole range of socioeconomic status (from
millionaire to, literally, shopping-bag zany), and IQs from 80 to 180.
(A guess, but an informed one: a good part of my training was in the
field of cognitive-ability testing). Yet a high proportion of our
patrons seemed to me to be actuated by one or the other (tho'
occasionally, both) of just two major motivations: (a) the desire to
solve challenging problems by logical deduction from evidence, and (b)
the desire to discover royal ancestry, or connections -- even absurdly
distant ones -- to 'Notable Kin.'----Perhaps because I share the
former motivation, and understand it from within, so to speak, I took
more interest in the latter, which seemed to me to call for
explanation. Why, after all, should it make a rat's ass worth of
difference whether or not one is descended from Henry III of England,
or is a twelfth cousin of Princess Diana? Millions -- perhaps tens of
millions -- can claim both. (To take things back still further,
demographers have estimated the total number of living descendants of
Charlemagne at around a billion.) The answer seemed to me then, and
seems to me now, to lie -- for many, tho' certainly not all -- in a
deep uncertainty as to whether one is 'important' or of no account (a
common insecurity, as most people, myself included, are in fact of no
great importance), and/or in a sense of alienation from the society in
general. A great many of the people who obviously deeply desired RDs
and NK were older couples whose kids had long flown the coop; aging
spinsters; gay men of all ages (whose overrepresentation in the field
of genealogy is so obvious and well known as not even to warrant
description as an 'open secret,' there being nothing secret about it);
and eccentric loners, some of them not far from committability. (Oh,
I could tell stories!) A great many of the foregoing were
hypersensitive to perceived slights (not merely from me, but from many
of the staff), and, in my opinion, suffered from many signs and
symptoms of a profound sense of mediocrity.----For such people, the
successful hunt for RDs and NK salves both sores: the sufferer from a
sense of disconnection from our admittedly relatively rootless society
discovers a genuine (albeit, in my view, factually irrelevant)
connection to the family of man *via* cousinships; the sufferer from a
sense of mediocrity is palpably soothed by discovering that s/he, too,
descends from, and is related to, Very Important People.----Human, and
sad.----I do not, BTW, entirely exempt myself from motivation (b).
L Mahler
>
> Actually, it depends on where your ancestors lived, their
> background and the number of studies covering everybody in their
> area.
>
> In France, for example, nobility had a lot of privileges until the
> revolution (in the 1790s). So, to keep their privileges, nobles
> tried to marry in the same social class and as a result, it is only
> since 2 centuries that the noble and not noble are cmmonly
> inter-married.
>
> I don't know for England, but it seems to be similar except they
> had no revolution.
>
> In the early New World, commoners and noble lived together. Because
> of place availability, a lot of nobles had large families so that
> it became more frequent to have inter-marriages. Also, because the
> number of migrants in the early centuries are rather small compared
> to the population of Europe at the same time, it is quite easy to do
> a search among everybody while in Europe, it is not as easy.
>
> As a result, someone in North America will more likely have royal
> ancestors than someone in Europe. Perhaps still the hole in one,
> but the hole is then large as a golf course !
>
>
> Denis
Ive mentioned before & so have others,
in comparing genealogical resources for England,
as composed to other countries.
Maybe its pointless to name the differences again,
especially to people who only know about English genealogy.
The simple answer is that England has more record types available,
they go back earlier & they are often easier to access.
If the various regions of France had a decent percentage of parish
registers going back to circa 1540,
and they had testamentary records commencing in that period,
many more royal descents would be discovered.
Leslie
Matthew Hovious
people know, much less enjoy, the history of their respective
countries or societies; articles in the papers regarding the appalling
gaps in schoolchildren's knowledge of history suggest this trend is
only getting worse in most places. Yet at the same time so many works
of fiction and movies based in fantasy realms achieve huge success at
bookstores and the box office. Perhaps knowledge of a royal forebear
or the image of a knightly ancestor on horseback will spark an
interest in history in a few youngsters who might otherwise never
venture into the non-fiction area of the library; and if it does and
that interest takes root, then all the better.
leov...@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas") wrote in message news:<001a01c47812$283ac0a0$c3b4fea9@email>...
Bronwen Edwards
> side, we would keep our mouths shut about that. On the west side, the
> side that threw out all monarchy, for some reason it is something to
> make a noise about. I still cannot see how it fits in with the spirit
> of the 1776 revolution.
The spirit of the 1776 Revolution may be found in the history of the
relations between Benjamin Franklin & the Haudenosaunee [Iroquois]
Confederacy (from which John Locke drew much of his political
philosophy). As to the difference between one side of the pond and the
other, we Americans want to feel special and big so that we could grow
up and colonize other nations and beat up their leaders just like
England (and Spain, France, Portugal, etc.). In England, however,
people mostly need to feel special to their mums and their dogs. This
may be why today's empire-building by the UK is done hiding behind the
US. Neither one has grown up enough to let the women run things (as
the Iroquois advised). Bronwen Edwards
Bronwen Edwards
> According to reports I've read, Senator Kerry was surprised to discover
> some elements of his close ancestry, so I wonder if he has even got
> round to dim & distant royal connections or cares tuppence about them.
>
> Peter Stewart
With his hair? Are you kidding? Of course he cares but would never
admit it publicly. Wouldn't it be fun to have campaign funds in the US
depend on whether or not the candidate could successfully claim a
royal descent? I don't know whether it would be more fun to give such
a person more money or less money. In the US right now we are living
in a dollaropoly. We are entirely controlled by the
military-industrial complex (as Eisenhower termed it) right down to
what we eat for breakfast (and so is pretty much anyone else living in
a modern industrialized society. UK - I watch BBC and I see those
American corn flakes on your grocers' shelves! Bronwen still stirring
the pot
Peter Stewart
So the prime ministership of Margaret Thatcher and her Falkland Islands
conquest were not a pathetic regression to infantile wish-fulfilment by
the British, but rather a sign of maturity?
And does Hillary Clinton have Iroquois advisers on her staff by any chance?
Peter Stewart
Bronwen Edwards
>> The idea of royal heritage is foreign and inimical to most
> Americans (and American culture) (except for the highest
> echelons of American society where it is very important).
>
>
Perhaps you have not experienced enough working class America! I think
that finding a royal connection is far more impressive to the "average
Joe / Jane" than to the upper class. It provides a sense of the
unfairness of it all - here we are, descended from "greatness" (and
lucky enough to be able to find it documented), and still out of work,
hungry, homeless, whatever. My mother's sister married someone who
became Secretary of Labor as well as a full professor at Harvard. He
cannot be induced to discuss his ancestry and I have no idea if he
knows anything about it. My aunt, on the other hand, frequently
corresponded with me, asking for more and more information. My middle
class mother is hostile to the whole notion of genealogy but my
beatnik brother is romantically awash in dreams of his Pictish (and
possibly Elven) ancestors. Where we went wrong as a culture made up
primarily (but not exclusively) of immigrants was when the immigrant
generation decided to take off their own heritage (not only knowledge
of ancestry but customs, language, etc.) in order to become re-fried
Englishmen. I don't know if the other colonies did this - Australia,
New Zealand, etc., but it left Americans with nowhere to turn for
heritage. Having become a nation of isolated individuals, we have
learned to avoid knowledge of history and context. A government bent
on economic and military conquest of other nations takes full
advantage of that. Bronwen
Doug McDonald
> Aristotle <mis...@swbell.net> wrote in message news:<410C199E...@swbell.net>...
>
>>>The idea of royal heritage is foreign and inimical to most
>>
>>Americans (and American culture) (except for the highest
>>echelons of American society where it is very important).
The romantic aspect must be important.
Scratch an American (me) and you will find a Scot.
But scratch my cheek (literally) and what pops up?
A SCYTHIAN!!! Horse riding pagans from Central Asia! Riding
the plains west to .... Norway. Whence they get on a ship
and invade northwestern Scotland, eventually leading to ME!!
One must admit that it's romantic. The intermediate (Somerled)
was not a King ... but close. And it actually may be true. It sure
looks true. It all fits. Well, maybe not actually a Scythian ...
but close. It's all in the DNA. Somerled is the oldest historical
figure whose existance is confirmed by DNA; strictly speaking,
the DNA shows that the R1a MacDonalds, MacAllisters, and MacDugalls
all come from one source, as the classical genealogy says, and the
timing fits Somerled. That alone is quite romantic ... until
somebody beats him (Flaad? .... but he will be MUCH harder,
since the best candidate for his DNA just happens to be a
subset of THE most common haplotype in western Europe, rather
than a very uncommon one like mine.)
It's the actual specific DNA Y-haplotype of Somerled that is
so interesting. David Faux has shown that it fits the prototypical
"asian" profile of R1a, rather than the more common "European"
profile seen so commonly in Russia, Poland, Belarus, Germany,
and in the smaller R1a percentage in France and England. The
region where it is present matches perfectly the region visited by
the Scythians, and the region where it dominates today was the
homeland of them.
Not real proof, but a very romantic scenario.
Doug McDonald
D. Spencer Hines
the Iroquois.
DSH
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:0mzPc.29655$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Nathaniel Taylor
mkk...@rcn.com (marshall kirk) wrote:
> ... two major motivations: (a) the desire to
> solve challenging problems by logical deduction from evidence, and (b)
> the desire to discover royal ancestry, or connections -- even absurdly
> distant ones -- to 'Notable Kin.'----
> ... Why, after all, should it make a rat's ass worth of
> difference whether or not one is descended from Henry III of England,
> or is a twelfth cousin of Princess Diana? ... The answer seemed to me
> ... to lie ... in a deep uncertainty as to whether one is 'important',
> ... and/or in a sense of alienation from the society in general.
> ... [T]he sufferer from a sense of disconnection from our admittedly
> relatively rootless society discovers a ... connection to the family
> of man *via* cousinships; the sufferer from a sense of mediocrity is
> palpably soothed by discovering that s/he, too, descends from, and is
> related to, Very Important People.----Human, and sad.
Insightful, if unflattering. Richard Smyth has challenged this, but I
would think it holds true for a percentage of certain sectors of
genealogical hobbyists, particularly those who are determinedly looking
for pre-modern connections (to royalty, etc.), and for remote
connections to famous people. Richard allows, rightly I think, that
Marshall's observations may apply better to his sample--patrons of a
place like the NEHGS research library, who may be more 'advanced' in
their genealogical trajectory and in their concomitant neuroses than the
visitors of a small, local genealogy center.
Generalizing outward to embrace the universe of genealogical interest, I
would have to agree with Richard's challenge--that there are a good many
people who share neither motivation (a) nor (b). Many who approach
genealogy for the first time have no idea that it is possible (or how
common it is) to find royal descents or 'notable kin', so this is *not*
their motivation either initially or later. Once they find out about
the phenomenon generally, or have such links pointed out in their own
trees, they may take a good-natured pleasure in it without necessarily
displaying any of the pathology that Marshall describes.
On the other hand, there can certainly be an element of pathos in this
area of genealogy--people and organizations that give it a bad name, as
it were, and expose it to the kind of scorn we have seen coming from
outside the U.S. Yet it is a bit disingenuous for people in the UK or
Commonwealth to affect surprise that people in a breakaway republic
should show an interest in aristocratic connections (however remote)
within their shared and still inarguably class-conscious society.
Out of curiosity, I've just been looking into U.S. lineage societies
that reference medieval ancestry (in my view, they are partly
responsible for the ludicrous aspects of this pursuit), and hope to post
on this separately.
Nat Taylor
Ronald Di Iorio
who have interest in genealogy do have children, or
are more like the "aging spinsters" to which you have
referred, either women who are in fact aging
spinsters, or women who may have married but had no
issue, and in some ways seem to substitute collecting
ancestors for lavishing attention on grandchildren.
But I can honestly say that, to my knowledge, I have
encountered no homosexual men who are interested in
the subject. Am I living under a rock, or just
incredibly naive? Can anyone else confirm this
assertion? I guess my masculinity is now doubly
threatened, as not only am I interested in genealogy,
but do like a few show tunes.
Ronald Di Iorio
marshall kirk <mkk...@rcn.com> wrote:
Nathaniel Taylor wrote in message news:<
[snippage]
>gay men of all ages (whose overrepresentation in the
field
of genealogy is so obvious and well known as not even
to warrant
description as an 'open secret,' there being nothing
secret about it);
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
D. Spencer Hines
Kirk is right on this one.
Many homosexuals are quite intelligent people, so they realize they are
unlikely to have progeny of their own blood.
That turns them backward -- looking for ancestors -- just like some of
the women you describe, who also have no progeny of the blood.
It's a quite natural human phenomenon.
If one can't go forward in time to blood relations -- one goes back.
Cheers,
DSH
"Ronald Di Iorio" <medge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2004080314384...@web53402.mail.yahoo.com...
Carolyn Clark Campbell
died, and I realized I had lost an important link to my past not only
for myself but for my child and grandchildren, because he used to tell
tales of Scottish ancestors (although they were many generations back)
and I knew nothing of our history before America. I was surprised how
much I was able to find, and it became like a giant cross-word puzzle,
filling in missing piece after missing piece. I think a lot of us
became genealogical hobbyists for that reason. First, it was fun
reading about the historical period in which the people lived, and
trying to imagine what their lives must have been like, so that I would
have more than a name and dates and places. This opened my eyes to so
much of history I hadn't known before. When I finally "hit" a royal
ancestor I didn't believe it. When I found it in several sources, I
finally had it confirmed professionally.
This was during the days before computerized databases, so to index
ancestors we had to number every ancestor -- 1 for yourself, 2 for your
father, 3 for your mother, then double each person for their father and
double plus one for their mother. Having picked up a royal ancestor, I
decided to count back to Charlemagne who, of course, is in virtually
every royal lineage (and whom I've heard said is actually ancestor to as
much as 25% of all living people of European descent). When
Charlemagne's number exceeded three trillion, I decided that (1) 1/1
trillionth of CM's genes was hardly something to brag about, and (2)
since there haven't been a trillion human beings who have lived yet, it
must mean I'm related to everyone -- which -- duh! -- is of course the
truth.
But this hasn't stopped my enjoyment of the research, and to be honest
once one gets back beyond a certain date it is almost impossible to find
anyone but aristocracy (especially those with titles and land records)
or royalty. I think we can all reach most of the same ancestors if we
continue working on our "trees" forever. What it has done is open my
eyes to the fact that individual nationalities are so artificial --
after several generations I find ancestors in every country of Europe
and a few beyond. It is a wonderful lesson in how we are truly all one
family.
I think this ultimately has the opposite result from "snob appeal".
Carolyn Clark Campbell
Sharp, Ann
The simple answer is that England has more record types available, they go back earlier & they are often easier to access.
Ann:
The other simple answer is that England is an island, and therefore by definition land is limited; consequently pedigrees -- for property owners in particular -- are correspondingly deep.
L.P.H.,
Ann
ax...@pge.com
http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm
Si metrum non habet, non est poema.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Steele Gordon
> On the other hand, there can certainly be an element of pathos in this
> area of genealogy--people and organizations that give it a bad name, as
> it were, and expose it to the kind of scorn we have seen coming from
> outside the U.S. Yet it is a bit disingenuous for people in the UK or
> Commonwealth to affect surprise that people in a breakaway republic
> should show an interest in aristocratic connections (however remote)
> within their shared and still inarguably class-conscious society.
The modern interest in genealogy is a product of the Industrial Revolution.
Far be it from me to rob some struggling graduate student in historical
psychology (assuming there is such a discipline) from an excellent Ph.D.
dissertation topic, but briefly:
1) The Industrial Revolution, which began in England, created enormous
amounts of new wealth and made it possible for the new middle class (the
term was coined only in 1812) to live at a level only the gentry and
aristrocracy had been able to enjoy previously. By 1827, there was so much
new money sloshing about that a young British novelist coined a new word to
describe its possessors, "millionaires." (The novelist, by the way, was
named Benjamin Disraeli.) The US quickly developed an industrial middle
class of its own, with even more pretensions to gentility. Victorian
morality--so different from 18th century ideas of propriety--is another
product of the Industrial Revolution. The 19th century was the golden age of
the aspiring middle class. Hyacinth Bucket (Boo-KAY!) was born out of her
time.
2) But while they could buy better houses, carpets, china, etc., and hold
Bucketian candlelight suppers, they still lacked something the aristocrats
had, ancestors. So they went out and found them. Sometimes honestly and
sometimes not. This was quite as much an obsession of the British nouveau
riche as of the American variety. Gilbert and Sullivan make wicked fun of
middle class pretensions in nearly every one of their plays, perhaps
especially The Pirates of Penzance. ("In this chapel are ancestors: you
cannot deny that. With the estate, I bought the chapel and its contents. I
don't know whose ancestors they *were*, but I know whose ancestors they
*are*, and I shudder to think that their descendant by purchase (if I may so
describe myself) should have brought disgrace upon what, I have no doubt,
was an unstained escutcheon.")
3) Finally, people grew up, and genealogy became simply a fascinating hobby
for many. Now a new Industrial Revolution is causing a new explosion of
wealth and a new interest in genealogy as a new group of people suddenly
find themselves with the wherewithal of conspicuous consumption. Plus ça
change department.
As for Anglo-American culture being class conscious, of course we are. All
social animals have hierarchical societies and always will. It is built into
our genes. (Please note that attempts to rid human society of classes have,
without exception, been disastrous, unless you admire Pol Pot's Cambodia--as
Bronwen Edwards seems to, so loathing the one she nevertheless chooses to
live in).
What has long distinguished Anglo-American social structure has not been its
class-consciousness--an artifact of all societies--but the remarkable ease
with which people can move up (and down) through that structure, and always
have been able to so move. This is one of the reasons (along with good
records) that makes British genealogy is so entertaining. You never know
what black sheep or white knight is going to show up.
JSG
John Higgins
message I posted in April 2004, which I've copied (in large part) below. I
don't recall that anything more was posted on the topic. I'm still looking
for information on this family.
Some Dowdall questions:
1. Paget's ancestry of Prince Charles includes the following descent:
P56641 Sir John Dowdall
O28321 Sir John Dowdall of Newtown, m. Anne Batome
N14161 Lawrence Dowdall of Glasspistol, m. Isabella FitzRichard of
Glasspistol
M7081 John Dowdall of Glasspistol, m. Eleanor Marwood of Skrine
L3541 Edward Dowdall of Glasspistol (d. VI.III.1590), m. Eleanor Galtrim of
Dundalk
K1771 John Dowdall of Glasspistol, Co. Louth, m. Anne Cusack of Cushington,
Co. Meath
J886 Mary Dowdall of Glasspistol, Co. Louth, m. William Smyth of Dundrum,
Co. Down
Is it known if either of the two Sir Johns is possibly the one that married
Margaret Dartois (or the father of that one)?
2. From a very early (and probably not very reliable) edition of Burke's
Landed Gentry, I can piece together the following interesting descent:
Sir John Dowdall (living 1450); m. (her 1st) Margaret [called Maude in BLG]
D'Artois
Sir Thomas Dowdall (probably d. 1510)
Sir William Dowdall
Sir William Dowdall
Sir John Dowdall
Sir John Dowdall of Kilfinny, Limerick, m. Elizabeth Southwell
Elizabeth Dowdall, m. Sir Hardress Waller (the regicide) [and eventually to
Princess Diana]
Can this descent be confirmed? Any details on the spouses of the various
Dowdalls?
3. From Burke's Irish Family Records, Elinor, only child of Sir Thomas
Dowdall by his wife Elizabeth, elder dau. and co-heiress of Sir Robert
Hollywood, m. John Nangle, 16th Baron of Navan. This Sir Thomas is
presumably NOT the same one mentioned above (unless the "only child"
reference is wrong) - can he be connected to the rest of the family?
John Higgins
"Who begot whom is a most amusing kind of hunting" - Horace Walpole
> -----Original Message-----
> From: conaught2 [mailto:cona...@charter.net]
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 10:37 AM
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Additions to John Kerry's ancestor table
>
>
Frank Bullen
Regards
Frank
marshall kirk
worked (and the city in which it lay), but I can assure you of the
truth of my remarks on the overrepresentation of gay men (by which,
BTW, I *don't* mean "too many," but "more than you'd expect if nothing
but random selection were at work*). But how do I know, you may well
ask? First, because they told me, quite casually; second, because
several colleagues, themselves gay, told me (and had often enough got
their info from the patron's mouth); third, because it was, in some
cases, so screamingly obvious that one needed take but a single glance
from across the room to be satisfied of the fact. (The "Oh-my-Gawd"
factor. As for my own "gaydar," well, I have it and came by it
honestly, in a way that doubtless needs no amplification.) Also, this
has been true, according to what I've often been told by older and
more experienced genealogists, of several of the well-known
genealogists of the 20th century. It's also true of not a few posters
on SGM, tho' I'll certainly name no names!
There are of course many heterosexual genealogists, whose wives and
children appear to reflect predilection rather than the expectations
of society. Don't feel threatened, please, in your masculinity!
medge...@yahoo.com (Ronald Di Iorio) wrote in message news:<2004080314384...@web53402.mail.yahoo.com>...
marshall kirk
your comments are well put and well taken, as usual, and I take no
serious exception to anything you have to say here. Actually, I find
myself pretty much in agreement with Richard Smyth's strictures, as
well, tho' I wonder -- I really have no idea, of course -- whether the
patrons of his FHC feature many Mormons. I neglected to list the
religious imperatives of Mormonism among the major motivators of
genealogical research, primarily because I ran into rather few. The
Mormon angle can of course be completely orthogonal to the motivations
I've perceived as common, and intriguing. I'd like to emphasize that
it was far from my intent to paint all genealogists with a broad brush
-- I'm talking about what I saw as a large minority, which made its
presence so insistently clear as to arouse my curiosity.
It's perhaps worth asking, in this connection, why books of royal
lineages devoid of biographical content, and the endless flood of
columns demonstrating and re-demonstrating the long-since-obvious fact
that famous people tend to be related to one another ... and, tho'
usually more distantly, to YOU! ... are so popular. Some may find
intellectual interest -- I do -- in Gary's argument, most recently
expressed, and very well, in the intro to his _RD600_, that
power-elites tend to forge genealogical connections to previous
power-elites; I would carry it much further, and say that there's
probably a certain genealogical continuity, carried along in a sort of
storm-center of power and wealth, between Periclean Athens and the
Fortune 500. This genealogical/power-elite storm-center draws New
Men, in the Roman sense, into itself all the time, and sometimes in
great numbers during and after social upheavals, but in some sense
it's a continuous phenomenon.----I do suspect that an awful lot of
people buy books of this sort for emotional rather than intellectual
reasons.
It seems clear to me that lineage societies, in general, tend to
foster the sort of motivations I'm talking about. I distinctly recall
one patron who proudly displayed his certificate of enrolment in some
sort of Charlemagne-society, and I really see little difference
between this and putting your (real or concocted) coat of arms above
your fireplace.
This subject would bear much discussion, but probably not here; it's
pretty OT.
Nathaniel Taylor <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<nathanieltaylor-F2...@news06.east.earthlink.net>...
Martin E. Hollick
I'm well attuned with the people who fall into the "b" category.
You'd be surprised by the number of people who call someone famous "an
ancestor" when they are a distant cousin. Many people start genealogy
because Grandma or Aunt Martha told them they were related to so and
so.
This entire thread started with the rationale of Americans involved
with genealogy and their pursuit of royal lines, although that would
be the antithesis of all things democratic and American. It seems to
me that American genealogy was born about the same time as the NEHGS
in 1847. Largely, the groups that were here already, wanted to point
out to newcomers (and specifically the Irish) that it was they who had
founded the nation, etc. etc. The Mayflower Society and the DAR came
out of this. So, sadly, American genealogy was born out of a one
upsmanship if you will over later emigrant groups. Some of that
attitude still persists. I know many a genealogist who will swoon
over my royal lines (and I have a bunch) and dismiss my father's
entire ancestry (he's Slovak). To me it is literally all the same,
with the caveat, that the more I get to research, the happier I am.
If Irish Catholic/Famine migration records were as easy to research as
16-17th century English records, I'd be much happier. I'd rather
solve problems in the 19th century first. However, when you hit a
brick wall, it's nice to turn to medieval genealogy as an ongoing
enterprise and see what new things have been found etc.
Perhaps it is the librarian thing and helping the public and we get a
skewed view of the world. Perhaps the people like yourself you don't
fit into a or b categories never ask our help.
Martin
Nathaniel Taylor <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<nathanieltaylor-F2...@news06.east.earthlink.net>...
Bronwen Edwards
10-20% of ourselves are homosexual, transsexual or some other sort of
gender bender. As for whether or not they have progeny, go back in
time and ask Edward II. Since many of us are descended from him and
his sexual inclinations are a matter of very public record (and
horrendous death for him), this can be instructive of the fact that
sexual orientation does not preclude either men or women from having
children. The desire (or obligation, as would be the case for royalty)
to have children is not related to sexual orientation, hence the many
current court cases involving this issue. Bronwen
Kevan Barton
But have you visited the lands of your Italian ancestors, stood where they
lived, saw vistas that they would have seen, knelt in their churches.....
Your peasant ancestors still have much to offer even though they may not
have lobbed off someone's head, raped a women they'd kidnapped, sired the
next King, or been canonized ;-)
Cheers,
Kevan
Bronwen Edwards
than
> Australia and at the same time, with many convicts transported to Australia
> it could be dangerous to trace families as that kind of ancestors were
> hushed up but recently the tables have turned and it is fashionable to have
> a convict ancestor. Also many people have realised that that the "crimes" of
> many convicts were trivial.
>
Of course, one of the consequences of the American attempt to be
ahistorical and without global context is the fact that most of them
do not know (and do not want to know) that the 13 colonies of the east
coast of North America were also penal colonies. They were not
exclusively so, but that is how many (most?) early colonists arrived.
It is undoubtedly also true that many of the crimes would be trivial
or non-criminal today. I think the Australian pride in being descended
from a convict is healthy. The American desire to be distanced from
ancestors is not. Best, Bronwen
>
Ronald Di Iorio
Kevan
You're right, of course, and I meant in no way to
deprecate the peasant part of my ancestry. I only
meant that, unfortunately, after pouring over rolls of
microfilm and extracting their birth/marriage/death
records, the results are, ultimately, a list of names
and dates. There is nothing there to "flesh-out" the
individuals, unlike what one finds with a royal/noble,
or even say an older New England line, where one can
often locate offices held, freeman and land records,
military records, prosecutions for criminal activity,
etc. Although I did find one item of interest
assigned to one of these "contandini", when it was
noted that he could not be present to report the birth
of his child because he was in jail awaiting trial for
what best translates as "brigandage". Would love to
know the story behind that.
I had planned on visiting the village in Italy where
my paternal grandparents had been born last year, but
corporate downsizing resulted in my losing my position
and I could not justify going financially. Perhaps I
will have another opportunity in the future.
Ciao
Ron
Kevan Barton <kevan...@adelphia.net> wrote:Ron,
Cheers,
Kevan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Leo van de Pas
You say the homosexuality of Edward II is "a matter of public record", I
think it still is "speculation". Charles II had a group of ministers around
him and their initials formed the word "Cabal" does this make Charles II
homosexual? If there has been proof about the homosexuality of Edward II, I
can say only "great, and so what" but as far as I know there is only
speculation and just because people heap speculation upon speculation this
doesn't make it so.
Best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bronwen Edwards" <lostc...@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: Genealogical Patrons was Additions to John Kerry's ancestor
table
Kevin Randolph Hearst
> Frank Johansen wrote:
>
>
> > Just remove the name, but retain the slash:
> > <http://members.aol.com/wreitwiesn/candidates2004/>
>
> <http://members.aol.com/wreitwiesn/candidates2000/> is probably also
> interesting!
>
> Regards
> Frank H. Johansen
Thank you much for posting the links Frank, very interesting indeed.
__
Kevin Randolph Hearst
www.hearstmania.com
citizenkane1123[erase this gap]@hotmail.com
Watch Leno tonight to catch the future Mrs. Hearst!
Ann Sharp
> If Irish Catholic/Famine migration records were as easy to research as
> 16-17th century English records, I'd be much happier.
Ann:
A-MEN!!!
One of the other contributing causes to genealogy being the popular
hobby it presently is has to do with demographics, too. Many more people
are living longer, retiring from business, and have both a little money and
a little leisure, and can hope for several years of reasonable health. They
decide that they'd like their grandchildren to know a bit about their own
grandparents (breakdown of extended family through geographic dispersion as
mentioned earlier) and off they go.
Nathaniel, though I'm not a member of any of the medieval-descent
lineage societies, I would say it's a given that all have educational
programs with a focus on the part of history they represent, that all make
an effort to discover, collect, and preserve historical records of interest,
and that all promote educational, historical and patriotic programs of
various sorts. That's just the smaller organizations -- the larger ones add
on from there. On the whole, most lineage societies are concerned about
losing members, as women's societies used to be able to draw on a pool of
women who didn't work outside the home and could arrange their own
schedules; now the daughters and granddaughters of those women work full
time. May I point out that the snob appeal has a half life as every
generation redoubles the possible sources of eligible ancestors? so where,
if my great-grandmother had wanted to join, say, the DAR, it required one of
her four great-grandfathers to have served ... but her daughter had those
four and another four from the father's side, and HER granddaughter (me) a
pool of thirty-two men and, in fact, a woman as well. It only takes one.
L.P.H.,
Ann
L Mahler
> The other simple answer is that England is an island, and therefore by definition land is limited; consequently pedigrees -- for property owners in particular -- are correspondingly deep.
What about other islands with a limited amount of land?
For example, Ireland, Isle of Man, Shetlands, etc.
Do they have a fair percentage of wills & parish registers going back to
1540?
Leslie
L Mahler
> The other simple answer is that England is an island, and therefore by definition land is limited; consequently pedigrees -- for property owners in particular -- are correspondingly deep.
John Steele Gordon
"Bronwen Edwards" <lostc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Of course, one of the consequences of the American attempt to be
> ahistorical and without global context is the fact that most of them
> do not know (and do not want to know) that the 13 colonies of the east
> coast of North America were also penal colonies. They were not
> exclusively so, but that is how many (most?) early colonists arrived.
> It is undoubtedly also true that many of the crimes would be trivial
> or non-criminal today. I think the Australian pride in being descended
> from a convict is healthy. The American desire to be distanced from
> ancestors is not. Best, Bronwen
As an American historian, I wouldn't have the faintest idea what "the
American attempt to be ahistorical and without a global context" might mean
(and please don't bother to explain). It reminds me of the joke, what do you
get if you cross a mafioso with a post-modernist? You get someone who makes
you an offer you can't understand.
I might, however, point out that a nation of 290,000,000 people does not act
collectively in its interpretation and approach to history. History is
written by historians, who range from looney left to looney right, and
dispute American history to a fare-thee-well at every conference and
seminar. The fact that a massive biography of Alexander Hamilton has been on
the NYTimes bestseller list for fourteen weeks now would indicate that many
Americans are interested in their own history.
As for penal colonies, not a single one of the thirteen colonies that formed
the United States was founded as a penal colony. And not a single one was
founded by the English state either. They were all founded either by
profit-seeking corporations (the Virginia Company, for instance) or by
proprietors, who also hoped to make a profit ("Though I desire to extend
Religious freedom, yet I want some recompense for my troubles."--William
Penn, founder of Pennsylvania.).
To be sure, England used the colonies as a dumping ground for undesirables,
including felons, but that does not make them penal colonies. It greatly
enriched the American gene pool too and the US has always been notable for
the sheer number of its citizens who march to their many different drummers.
JSG
Nathaniel Taylor
"Ann Sharp" <ax...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> ... though I'm not a member of any of the medieval-descent
> lineage societies, I would say it's a given that all have educational
> programs with a focus on the part of history they represent, that all make
> an effort to discover, collect, and preserve historical records of interest,
> and that all promote educational, historical and patriotic programs of
> various sorts.
I had this assumption too, but forgive me if I'm suspicious that some of
these organizations--even if at some point decades ago they did or
sought to do some of the things you name--are now nothing more than
paper organizations which collect application fees, sell regalia, and
offer little in return: they prey upon serial joiners, as it were.
I am aware that the majority of lineage groups having colonial or
post-colonial American associations (military service, local settlement,
etc.) certainly do try to offer the things you describe, and some of the
big ones (e.g. DAR, or any of the three parallel national 'Colonial
Dames' groups that operate museums and endow scholarships, etc.) are
well known for it.
I think that the problem I describe may be peculiar to the lineage
societies referencing medieval descent, since the subject matter is
essentially an abstraction with little meaning in Americans' everyday
lives, and the groups can never have had a large membership or a lot of
money. One exception is the two 'Magna Charta' organizations, which
appear to have annual meetings and/or to be involved in civic projects
(see the unrealized plaidoyer for a Magna-Carta memorial in Philadelphia
on the website of BOMC, www.magnacharta.com). BOMC also claims to have
been involved in purchase, interpretation and display arrangment by
which Ross Perot bought a copy of Edward I's reissue of Magna Carta and
presented it to the US National Archives for more or less permanent
display, back in the 1980s. The rival Nat. Soc. MC Dames & Barons
appears to have organized trips to England in recent years, as well.
And the older of the two 'Charlemagne' groups I listed yesterday has a
website with a modest bit of instructional content, and appears to have
had annual dinners, etc.
But I especially suspect the piggy-back Philadelphia groups (apparently
related to the Nat. Soc. MC Dames & Barons), and a couple of the more
recent stand-alone groups, which appear to exist more or less wholly to
collect joiners' fees, or to add decorations to those who like to
collect and wear them. I will post some more on some of these groups
later.
So, Ann, I would be happy to be proven wrong on this: I'm writing of my
first impressions based on some preliminary investigations.
Nat Taylor
Frank Bullen
<In England, however,
<people mostly need to feel special to their mums and their dogs. This
<may be why today's empire-building by the UK is done hiding behind the
<US.
Who was "hiding behind" whom, I wonder, in 1914 and 1939, when England's all-out war effort ruined her economy?
Regards
Frank
Gordon Banks
that I am collecting names. They don't require nearly as much space
around the house to store as cameras, computers, coins, books, tools,
etc. (Of course, you tend also to collect books on history and
genealogy).
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 21:36, Leo van de Pas wrote:
> One reason I have not seen mentioned. In a world becoming more and more
> plastic, houses the same (within variety) cars the same (within variety)
> clothes the same, and so on.
> The one thing that is yours is your ancestry. Also I think it is a much more
> satisfactory occupation than, say, saving stamps, even though stamps may
> make money and genealogy costs money. Genealogy can stretch your imagination
> and you learn about history, other countries, traditions and some even other
> languages. I read somewhere that genealogy is a coat-hanger for
> history----this is why, I think, royal families are more interesting than
> presidents. We hear about the Victorian times, but (sorry) do we here about
> the Washingtonian era? Popes in some ways are worse :-)
> Best wishes
> Leo van de Pas
Christopher J Handy
"marshall kirk" <mkk...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1c74a9e5.0408...@posting.google.com...<snip>
> Yet a high proportion of our
> patrons seemed to me to be actuated by one or the other (tho'
> occasionally, both) of just two major motivations: (a) the desire to
> solve challenging problems by logical deduction from evidence, and (b)
> the desire to discover royal ancestry, or connections -- even absurdly
> former motivation, and understand it from within, so to speak, I took
> more interest in the latter, which seemed to me to call for
> explanation. Why, after all, should it make a rat's ass worth of
> difference whether or not one is descended from Henry III of England,
> millions -- can claim both. (To take things back still further,
> demographers have estimated the total number of living descendants of
> Charlemagne at around a billion.) The answer seemed to me then, and
> seems to me now, to lie -- for many, tho' certainly not all -- in a
> deep uncertainty as to whether one is 'important' or of no account (a
> common insecurity, as most people, myself included, are in fact of no
> great importance), and/or in a sense of alienation from the society in
> general. A great many of the people who obviously deeply desired RDs
> and NK were older couples whose kids had long flown the coop; aging
> spinsters; gay men of all ages (whose overrepresentation in the field
> of genealogy is so obvious and well known as not even to warrant
> description as an 'open secret,' there being nothing secret about it);
> I could tell stories!) A great many of the foregoing were
> hypersensitive to perceived slights (not merely from me, but from many
> of the staff), and, in my opinion, suffered from many signs and
> symptoms of a profound sense of mediocrity.----For such people, the
> successful hunt for RDs and NK salves both sores: the sufferer from a
> sense of disconnection from our admittedly relatively rootless society
> connection to the family of man *via* cousinships; the sufferer from a
> sense of mediocrity is palpably soothed by discovering that s/he, too,
> descends from, and is related to, Very Important People.----Human, and
In my case, it was neither a) nor b). Like many Americans, I was largely
ignorant of much of my ancestry, and what began of curiosity grew into
something of a hobby. I have found the intellectual challenge of some of the
research rather stimulating, I admit. And as to royal and notable ancestors,
I found them interesting, but I wasn't LOOKING for them, and take no great
pride in the knowledge that I have them...and, considering the mathematical
probabilities involved, the odds of such descent are rather high, anyway.
Although I can say that the the knowledge of it makes the study of history
(already another of my pursuits) somewhat more interesting, given the sense
of connection it provides.
CJH
ROlson1062
you must be new at collecting names, just wait until you have closets full of
files, photcopies, printouts, wall charts, then you will see it is a lot like
any other hobby, and if you have pack-rack-itis, like me, it will become a
problem
Bob
Peter Stewart
<chomp>
> Yet it is a bit disingenuous for people in the UK or
> Commonwealth to affect surprise that people in a breakaway republic
> should show an interest in aristocratic connections (however remote)
> within their shared and still inarguably class-conscious society.
A good try, but our legs are not pulled. The consciousnss of social (as
distinct from economic) "class" in Britain and Australia, and I expect
in Canada and New Zealand, is different from the vulgar phenomenon of
acting out vainglorious fantasies in the USA.
People who join linage societies and don tacky regalia would become
laughing-stocks in Australia, more derided than indulged, and they would
be lucky if families and friends regarded them as silly at best.
Britain has produced many reference guides to the peerage and gentry,
but these were not widely or seriously used to bolster the status of
initiates or to exclude others, as with the appallingly vulgar "social
registers" of New York and elsewhere, whose pretentious denizens were
the main paying customers ready to buy a way in to European aristocracy
for their daughters.
> Out of curiosity, I've just been looking into U.S. lineage societies
> that reference medieval ancestry (in my view, they are partly
> responsible for the ludicrous aspects of this pursuit), and hope to post
> on this separately.
I suspect that this can be traced back in part to national origins -
some of the first American colonies were peopled by refugees from
religious orthodoxy, who wanted to believe they were the "elect" of God.
Now in a more secular age their descendants still want to be the "elect"
of humanity. The naievity and folly may be hereditary - at any rate,
these apparently haven't changed.
Peter Stewart
Ann Sharp
> ... New York and elsewhere, whose pretentious
> denizens were the main paying customers ready to
> buy a way in to European aristocracy for their daughters.
Ann:
Via those same European aristocrats who voluntarily -- even
eagerly -- negotiated for dowries and married the girls? In an era when the
girls did not have opportunities for serious education and self-sufficient
careers? Not that I really *wish* to criticize a breeding program that
managed to produce a Winston Churchill, even if he was the outstanding
result in a body of several dozen lesser lights.
Peter:
> I suspect that this can be traced back in part to
> national origins - some of the first American colonies
> were peopled by refugees from religious orthodoxy,
> who wanted to believe they were the "elect" of God.
> Now in a more secular age their descendants still want
> to be the "elect" of humanity. The naievity and folly
> may be hereditary - at any rate,
> these apparently haven't changed.
Ann:
The first place *I* saw the DFA tracing the British royal family
back to Adam was in a 1959 edition of CP ... published in Britain.
Peter:
> People who join linage societies and don tacky
> regalia would become laughing-stocks in Australia,
Ann:
Well, should you ever be presented to Her Majesty on an occasion
when *she's* wearing *her* family orders, perhaps it would be tactful to
ignore them.
http://www.australiagenweb.org/
IOOF Lodge Website Directory - Australia
Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Rebekahs
Descendants of Convicts Group Inc.
A special interest group formed by members of the Genealogical Society of
Victoria
First Fleet Fellowship
A historical society for people who have ancestors who arrived in Australia
in 1788 aboard one of the ships of the First Fleet.
North Coast Chapter, Fellowship of First Fleeters, NSW, Australia
Facts about the First Fleet. Members are descendants of those who came on
the First Fleet & landed in Sydney Cove, 26th January 1788. SQUIRE,
COLPITTS, SMITH, SPENCER, LUCAS, GASCOIGNE.
Pioneers Association of South Australia
Perpetuates the memory of the pioneers of early settlement in South
Australia. Membership is open to any person with an ancestor who arrived in
South Australia up to 31 December 1845.
Toowoomba Dead Persons Society ~ Queensland
Thanks for the opportunity of improving my education about a group
of people who survived a tough voyage and a hazardous relocation but made it
and bought their descendants a chance at a better life than theirs. At some
point I'll have to look into the details of Dead Persons Societies, too,
just to satisfy my curiosity.
L.P.H.,
Ann
"They all pretend to be very high-minded. They claim that their sole aim ...
is to uncover the mysteries of the past and to add to the store of human
knowledge. They lie. What they really want is a spectacular discovery, so
they can get their names in the newspapers and inspire envy and hatred in
the hearts of their rivals."
Chris Phillips
Ann Sharp wrote:
> Ann:
> The first place *I* saw the DFA tracing the British royal family
> back to Adam was in a 1959 edition of CP ... published in Britain.
I'm always on the lookout for corrections to CP, but surely no descent from
Adam would ever have been published by CP, even as a curiosity?
Volume 12, part 2, was published in 1959, but I can't see anything like a
descent from antiquity there.
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
> Peter:
>
>> ... New York and elsewhere, whose pretentious
>>denizens were the main paying customers ready to
>>buy a way in to European aristocracy for their daughters.
>
>
> Ann:
> Via those same European aristocrats who voluntarily -- even
> eagerly -- negotiated for dowries and married the girls? In an era when the
> girls did not have opportunities for serious education and self-sufficient
> careers? Not that I really *wish* to criticize a breeding program that
> managed to produce a Winston Churchill, even if he was the outstanding
> result in a body of several dozen lesser lights.
I don't follow the point you are making - European aristocrats had been
arranging marriages to accrue and hold on to wealth and power in their
families for many centuries before dollar princesses came along. I'm not
convinced that Lord Randolph Churchill married Jenny Jerome in quite
this way, but acquisitive unions in their day were an extension rather
than a change of practice, no matter how corrupt it may seem.
>
> Peter:
>
>>I suspect that this can be traced back in part to
>>national origins - some of the first American colonies
>>were peopled by refugees from religious orthodoxy,
>>who wanted to believe they were the "elect" of God.
>>Now in a more secular age their descendants still want
>>to be the "elect" of humanity. The naievity and folly
>>may be hereditary - at any rate,
>>these apparently haven't changed.
>
>
> Ann:
> The first place *I* saw the DFA tracing the British royal family
> back to Adam was in a 1959 edition of CP ... published in Britain.
I doubt the provenance of whatever you saw, but in any case what has
this to do with taking an inane pride in distant connections to old
nobility or royalty? "When Adam delved and Eve span / Who was then the
gentleman?" No-one, of course - these absurd pedigrees were just a means
of proclaiming that the individual's ancestors had _always_ known where
they came from, so that no descendant would ever have need to rediscover
a pedigree through genealogical research. People who thought like that
and paid for such nonsense were hardly likely to join lineage societies
open to parvenus who clutched at any & every ancestral straw.
>
> Peter:
>
>>People who join linage societies and don tacky
>>regalia would become laughing-stocks in Australia,
>
>
> Ann:
>
> Well, should you ever be presented to Her Majesty on an occasion
> when *she's* wearing *her* family orders, perhaps it would be tactful to
> ignore them.
The Order of the Garter and the Royal Victorian Order, which I suppose
you mean by her "family orders", are not exactly comparable to the list
of cheapjack societies presented by Nat, with their gaudy homespun
ribbons and costume jewelry. I assure you, Queen Elizabeth II can cut a
most impressive figure, and she does so without preening herself in
trashy gew-gaws.
> http://www.australiagenweb.org/
> IOOF Lodge Website Directory - Australia
> Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Rebekahs
> Descendants of Convicts Group Inc.
> A special interest group formed by members of the Genealogical Society of
> Victoria
> First Fleet Fellowship
> A historical society for people who have ancestors who arrived in Australia
> in 1788 aboard one of the ships of the First Fleet.
> North Coast Chapter, Fellowship of First Fleeters, NSW, Australia
> Facts about the First Fleet. Members are descendants of those who came on
> the First Fleet & landed in Sydney Cove, 26th January 1788. SQUIRE,
> COLPITTS, SMITH, SPENCER, LUCAS, GASCOIGNE.
> Pioneers Association of South Australia
> Perpetuates the memory of the pioneers of early settlement in South
> Australia. Membership is open to any person with an ancestor who arrived in
> South Australia up to 31 December 1845.
> Toowoomba Dead Persons Society ~ Queensland
>
> Thanks for the opportunity of improving my education about a group
> of people who survived a tough voyage and a hazardous relocation but made it
> and bought their descendants a chance at a better life than theirs. At some
> point I'll have to look into the details of Dead Persons Societies, too,
> just to satisfy my curiosity.
I've no idea what the Toowoomba Dead Persons do when they get together -
it's a fine city, and perhaps they are reluctant to leave. But I hope
you see my point - these organisations do _not_ celebrate links to
social rank or fame.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
>>whose pretentious denizens were the main paying customers ready to
>
> buy a way in >to European aristocracy for their daughters.
>
> can't have been all bad.
What dollar princes do you suppose Diana Spencer was descended from? And
Winston Churchill's grandfather blew his money, as far as I recall - at
any rate his daughter was courted purely for lucre. When the Churchills
wanted American cash they sensibly went first for a Vanderbilt, and
later a Deacon. And then they cahracteristically made a disaster of both
marriages....
>>The naievity and folly may be hereditary - at any rate, these
>
> apparently haven't >changed.
>
> They are hereditary around the world (and prevail in the Aussie branch
> of the Stewart family, as well).
You need to learn how jokes are made in context - this one misfires
limply, for inaccuracy as well as weakness, but at least for once you
are not talkling to yourself on the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> John Brandon wrote:
>
>>> whose pretentious denizens were the main paying customers ready to
>>
>>
>> buy a way in >to European aristocracy for their daughters.
>>
>> This has produced Winston Churchill and Lady Diana Spencer, so it
>> can't have been all bad.
>
>
> What dollar princes do you suppose Diana Spencer was descended from? And
> Winston Churchill's grandfather blew his money, as far as I recall - at
> any rate his daughter was courted purely for lucre. When the Churchills
> wanted American cash they sensibly went first for a Vanderbilt, and
> later a Deacon. And then they cahracteristically made a disaster of both
> marriages....
My typing is even worse than usual here - the above should read "What
dollar princess..." and "at any rate his daughter wasn't courted purely
for lucre".
Peter Stewart
John Steele Gordon
"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:942d5b80.04080...@posting.google.com...
> >I assure you, Queen Elizabeth II can cut a most impressive figure,
> and she does so without preening herself in trashy gew-gaws.
>
> old cow, and, from a distance, her orders and decorations precisely
> resemble the junk Nat's talking about. In her declining years, she's
> the reincarnation of Queen Mary, certainly one of the most
> unattractive women ever born.
Since she's a) 78 and b) the Queen, it strikes me as unsurprising that's
she's a bit dowdy. An old lady on the cutting edge of fashion would be a
frightening sight.
And she wears the gewgaws only at state occasions, when queens don't have
much choice about what they wear.
She has done an extremely difficult job--not one she applied for
either--very well for fifty-two years and doesn't even get to retire. She
deserves better than your cheap shot.
JSG
Peter Stewart
Well said, John (Steele Gordon, that is).
I'm sure Queen Elizabeth and her loyal subjects would not be unhappy
that John Brandon has observed her only "from a distance" - may it ever
remain so.
If he ever got closer than the page of a magazine, he might realise that
her "gew-gaws" are made of real diamonds, rubies and pearls, and that
she wears them exactly as required by protocol as the representative of
a living tradition, rather than to trick herself up as a descendant of
vanished monarchies.
I never saw Queen Mary, but nothing in the photographic record or the
accounts of her contemporaries suggests to me that she might have been
an especially unattractive person. Millions of people respected her
greatly, and her many friends seem to have agreed, with some amusement
at her very marked royal peculiarities.
Perhaps John Brandon should take the trouble to look up pictures of
Queen Elizabeth on her last state visit to the Vatican - papal
courtiers, who have seen enough sovereigns and their consorts to be
jaded, were literally struck breathless at the grandeur and dignity of
her appearance on that occasion, wearing a black gown, mantilla and
veil, glinting underneath with magnificent diamonds and the Garter
riband giving a rich touch of contrast. Mozart's Queen of the Night
brought to real - and benign - life. She must have enjoyed herself
thoroughly.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
>>"What dollar princess..." [do you suppose, etc., etc., blah, blah]
>
> ...
>
> I not only suppose, but know, that Diana Spencer's great-grandmother
> was the American heiress Frances Eleanor Work, daughter of Vanderbilt
> protege and self-made multi-millionaire Franklin Work of Chillicothe,
> Ohio, and New York City.
>
> It's helpful if you do a little research before blurting out.
It's only one opinion against another - I wouldn't classify Frances Work
as much of a dollar princess from an American social register, or the
Roche family as much in the way of European aristocrats.
And I wouldn't classify "blah, blah, blah" as wit.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
>>She deserves better than your cheap shot.
>
>
> was to show that we, as Americans, don't give a **** about Royalty.
> ^_\^
John Brandon should try some research of his own in the SGM archive -
republicanism isn't confined to Americans, of course, and in newsgroup
discussions over years I have been rather less an admirer of British
royalty than is John Steele Gordon.
Brandon made stupid, unfair and uninteresting remarks about two women,
not about the timeworn (and I think obsolete) institution they both
failthfully served.
Peter Stewart
Ann Sharp
(please pardon any duplications that may appear via the list once the
Rootsweb server is back up):
Peter:
I don't follow the point you are making - European aristocrats had been
arranging marriages to accrue and hold on to wealth and power in their
families for many centuries before dollar princesses came along. I'm not
convinced that Lord Randolph Churchill married Jenny Jerome in quite this
way, but acquisitive unions in their day were an extension rather than a
change of practice, no matter how corrupt it may seem.
Ann again:
I'm saying that the European aristocrats were more than ready to sell. I
wonder whether anyone has really examined the question of whether -- from
the buyers' view -- the aristocrats were a useless luxury they could
afford -- the ultimate in conspicuous consumption -- or whether they brought
useful value with them.
> Ann:
> Well, should you ever be presented to Her Majesty on
> an occasion when *she's* wearing *her* family orders,
> perhaps it would be tactful to ignore them.
Peter:
The Order of the Garter and the Royal Victorian Order, which I suppose you
mean by her "family orders", are not exactly comparable to the list of
cheapjack societies presented by Nat, with their gaudy homespun ribbons and
costume jewelry. I assure you, Queen Elizabeth II can cut a most impressive
figure, and she does so without preening herself in trashy gew-gaws.
Ann again:
"Family orders" is exactly what I meant. Here is a URL with a description
and a picture: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page500.asp ; here is another,
with a picture of HM wearing Queen Alexandra's Russian fringe tiara (I
think) and her family orders on her left shoulder:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page3269.asp . While I certainly wouldn't
call them "trashy," compared to other jewels in HM's collection her family
orders are not particularly valuable, but I am reasonably sure they have
great sentimental value for her.
Peter:
I've no idea what the Toowoomba Dead Persons do when they get together -
it's a fine city, and perhaps they are reluctant to leave. But I hope you
see my point - these organisations do _not_ celebrate links to social rank
or fame.
Ann again:
They celebrate the members' recorded links to history, as do all other
lineage societies, including, in its way (gasp!), S.G.M.
L.P.H.,
Ann
ax...@pge.com
http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm
This ... little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother's
side.
D. Spencer Hines
Queen Elizabeth II as Mozart's Queen of the Night in _The Magic Flute_.
I like it.
_The Bride Wore Black_.
DSH
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rCyQc.34858$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Bronwen Edwards
> >
> >
> As an American historian, I wouldn't have the faintest idea what "the
> American attempt to be ahistorical and without a global context" might mean
> (and please don't bother to explain).
Actually I would be delighted to bore you further. You may have been
fortunate enough to have dealt with motivated, interested students who
have some knowledge of history, but in my 25 years of teaching in such
institutions as the University of California, California State
University and various smaller colleges, such students have been quite
rare. You will probably not be surprised to learn that my field is
Ethnic Studies, particularly Native American Studies. In my classes in
Native American History, my assumption in the early years was that I
would be providing another perspective to the students for a history
with which they were already superficially familiar. In fact, it was
most commonly the case that I was the first and only place where
topics like the civil war, the revolution, the Indian wars,
colonialism, etc. would be addressed at all in the students'
experience. I found that it was impossible to assume that the students
were grounded in basic history, even at the university level. I did
not blame the students but rather wondered how so many students, from
so many diverse backgrounds and geographic locations, could have
"fallen through the cracks" in terms of their history education.
History was not the only problem, of course, in that they likewise
knew nothing of geography and many were unable to identify the
continents in a map of the world. Over the years my classes more and
more took on a "remedial" atmosphere. My students spanned the
economic, cultural and racial spectrum; the above problems were not
peculiar to any particular group. Although often discouraged, I tried
to rise to the challenge and instill a sense of curiosity about such
topics as history. I know that I was successful in a number of
instances and hope that other students may have left my classroom with
a spark that ignited later. All of that said, I grant that the word
"colony" was not the appropriate term in that, as you said, they were
not established specifically for that role. But I still maintain that
a very large number of convicts came to the colonies as an alternative
to further imprisonment and punishment, just as others came to find
their fortunes. The notion of seeking religious freedom only applied
to a very small percentage of colonists although their place in the
development of a "national character" is disproportionately large.
Thank you for your reply, Bronwen
Chris Phillips
the newsgroup as well. At his request, I'm posting it now.
Chris Phillips
____________________________________________________________________________
____
I first encountered the Adam descent in the 1953 edition of Burke's, which
included a vast account of the royal lineage to mark the coronation of
Elizabeth II that year. The descent originated in the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, initiated by Alfred the Great in the 9th century CE. The descent
suggested a principle of unity to the Anglo-Saxon realm by making it appear
that the ruling lineages of all major kingdoms of the "Heptarchy"--omitting
a few obscure lines such as that of the Hwicci--descended from Woden. These
descents from a common ancestor implied that the Anglo-Saxons were a single
people despite political divisions among the kingdoms before the ascendancy
of the House of Wessex (by Alfred's day the only surviving Anglo-Saxon
ruling line).
Woden was made a descendant of Noah by crediting the latter with a 4th son,
"born on the ark," of whom Holy Scripture, needless to say, says nothing.
From Noah the line was traced back to Adam, and the pedigree ends by
identifying Adam as "the son of God." This served the further purpose of
suggesting for the House of Wessex a sort of divine descent to replace the
pagan divine descent from Woden that the Anglo-Saxon royal lines had lost
with the coming of Christianity.
It is impossible to know just how long before Alfred's time these pedigrees
had been taking shape.
Undoubtedly to some extent they depended on oral tradition, which carried
them back a number of generations. But the historical accuracy of the
Wessex pedigree is debated, and not all historians today accept it as
authoritative all the way back to Cerdic.
But it does share a very old tradition in applying genealogy to such
critical political purposes as the unity of peoples. Archaeology has shown
that the ancient Israelites may very well have originated as a disparate
group of hill tribes in Palestine, who eventually united under the "House of
David" whose political existence Israeli archaeologists have now proved.
Most of us are familiar with OT pedigrees that derive the lineages of the
"Tribes of Israel" from the twelve sons of Jacob. This is very likely a
parallel phenomenon to, and perhaps even the inspiration for, the Adam
pedigree of the Anglo-Saxon kings.
A late echo is found in 18th-century genealogical compendia that derive from
the "Five Sons of Wittekind" all the major European reigning houses of the
day, including the Capetians. This early pre-echo of the principle of
European unity, probably derived (however remotely) from the Biblical model,
is among the more interesting manifestations of the political exploitation
of genealogy. Rulers were never averse to using their pedigrees in this
way; perhaps the most famous example comes from the pageants staged in
London to welcome the return of the child Henry VI from his coronation in
Paris as king of France: facing the portal of old St Paul's were two
pedigrees, one tracing Henry's descent from St Edward the Confessor and the
other from St Louis IX of France, thus justifying his claim to rule both
kingdoms and suggesting their unity.
These were ancient and medieval uses of genealogy, and they were highly
appropriate in past ages when power was equated with patrimony and descent
was very often an inescapable prerequisite to the exercise of authority.
Today, we can't all use our pedigrees to accomplish such lofty purposes.
The current thread on John Kerry's ancestry is diverting but his blood
descent, Czech, Irish or otherwise, can do nothing to establish his "right"
to be President, any more than George W. Bush's descent from George Herbert
Walker Bush proves his right to the same office. That depends entirely on
the ballot box. But in our pluralistic American society, genealogy can put
flesh and blood on the motto "E pluribus unum" by emphasizing the
diversities that have combined to make a modern nation.
John Parsons
Nathaniel Taylor
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:
> John Parsons sent me the reply below but accidentally omitted to send it to
> the newsgroup as well. At his request, I'm posting it now.
> ___________________________________________________________________
<snip>
> A late echo is found in 18th-century genealogical compendia that derive from
> the "Five Sons of Wittekind" all the major European reigning houses of the
> day, including the Capetians. This early pre-echo of the principle of
> European unity, probably derived (however remotely) from the Biblical model,
> is among the more interesting manifestations of the political exploitation
> of genealogy. Rulers were never averse to using their pedigrees in this
> way; perhaps the most famous example comes from the pageants staged in
> London to welcome the return of the child Henry VI from his coronation in
> Paris as king of France: facing the portal of old St Paul's were two
> pedigrees, one tracing Henry's descent from St Edward the Confessor and the
> other from St Louis IX of France, thus justifying his claim to rule both
> kingdoms and suggesting their unity.
I'm interested in the evolution of the common Germanic origin theory.
Can you (John or Chris) cite the apparent first appearance of this? I
think of it as a gradual amalgamation of parallel ideas within a single
state--such as the pedigrees deriving Merovingians, Carolingians and
Capetians all from the same male line (found in Anderson, and surely
from 17th-century French sources). It does postdate the Classicizing
pedigrees of the 16th-century Hapsburgs written of by Marie Tanner in
_The Last Descendant of Aeneas_. I have seen it taken to ludicrous
lengths in Plantagenet-Harrison's mid 19th-century pedigrees (where he
made himself the heir male of Witikind and/or Woden, if I recall right).
I'm also interested in the account of the displayed pedigrees at Henry
VI's triumphal entry: can one cite a source for this? I have the
oft-reproduced illuminated pedigree, itself in the shape of a
fleur-de-lis, showing him as heir to Saint Louis on both sides. But the
displayed pedigrees must have been rather larger?
Nat Taylor
Matthew Hovious
proving lines of royal descent, however remote in time, is in some way
exclusive to twentieth century Americans. Published works clearly
prove otherwise. Take, for example, the entry for one George Mathew,
Esq in Burke's "Landed Gentry". Already having served in the
Coldstream Guards and in Parliament, and represented Britain beyond
her shores as a Consul and as Governor of the Bahamas, Mr Mathew
clearly had no need to inflate his ancestry in order to be accorded
some importance. Yet the very first thing we learn about him is this:
"18th in descent from King Edward I".
A similar example occurs in Joseph Foster's "Some Feudal Coats of
Arms" published in 1902. At the end of this book, in the 1989 edition
by Arch Cape Press, we find the first instalment of another of
Foster's projects, "Our Ancestral Families and their Paternal Coat
Armour." On page 226 is a pedigree chart showing the descent of a Mrs
Edith Jane Ambrose hof London from "the Blood Royal of England". And
yes, Mrs Ambrose is shown to be 22nd in descent from none other than
Longshanks himself.
I suspect that many more such examples could be found in Burke's and
in other publications. It seems clear that a good many members of the
English gentry, though firmly settled on the eastern side of the Pond,
were nevertheless eager to claim royal descents no less remote than
what those on the other side could and can also claim. Foster even
expected so many submissions of pedigrees to his project that at the
bottom of the page he provided his address and instructions for
submitting them (thankfully for him, he died before the invention of
e-mail).
Foster and Burke's standards of genealogical scholarship are not the
issue here: I mention them because of what their actions say about
their own assessment of their readership. It seems that both felt that
their readers would not be offended by any implied snobbery in the
publication of such descents, nor in fact be above submitting them.
Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<_WdQc.33576$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> It is, at best, historically inaccurate to suggest that interest in
> proving lines of royal descent, however remote in time, is in some way
> exclusive to twentieth century Americans.
<snip of a cogent account of earlier English devotions to royal
descent.>
The point that I was making was that the US of A explicitly threw out
any form of monarchy and made laws against (government members)
accepting, holding or using titles. I concluded therefore that the
current US interest in royal ancestry and titles was un-American.
So far the only explanation of this un-Americanism is that they were
entitled to be illogical.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
GRHa...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/6/2004 11:56:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, t...@powys.org
writes:
I concluded therefore that the
current US interest in royal ancestry and titles was un-American.
So far the only explanation of this un-Americanism is that they were
entitled to be illogical.
Hi Tim,
Fortunately, the United States of America also considers itself a "free"
nation. As such each and every citizen has a right to consider anything
correct that he/she desires to be correct. This does not mean that his neighbor
must have the same opinion. In the United States everyone, including me, is
entitled to their own stupid opinion about any and all subjects. If I try
to force my beliefs and opinions on my neighbors by laws or rules I am
defeating the idea of the United States. Those fools who do not agree with me just
do not realize how wrong they are, and I couldn't care less about their
opinion. :-/
I have many peers and royal in my ancestry. I did NOT go searching for
them. They simply turned up as I tried to find as many of my ancestors as
possible. I do not consider myself better, or worse, than my neighbor or
friend who has not done such searching. I consider myself better because I am. I
think that this is one thing that has been downplayed in the United States.
I think that in the US each and everyone used to consider themselves better
than everyone else. Why not. I know all of my attributes, both good and
bad, and I can ignore the bad if I so desire.
I am glad that I do have peers and royals in my ancestry because it has
made my interest in history so much more personal. It is more interesting to
read about the deeds of Charlemagne if you can think, "Yeah, he was my 32nd
Great Grandfather."
After I saw the movie Braveheart, I, like many of my compatriots
considered Edward I Longshanks a cruel, pagan King (the movies description). This
bothered me because I knew that he was my 18/19/20/21/23 Great Grandfather
depending upon which line used. I started studying old Eddy and discovered that
there was a lot more to him than revealed in the Gibson movie. He was not
saint but neither was he a complete devil.
I think that the basic statement about Americans (citizens of the United
States) is that you cannot make a blanket statement about them because of
the many variations present in the population. Because of this it is difficult
to define what is "un-American". I consider that Jane Fonda's actions in
Vietnam were un-American because she was giving aid and comfort to the enemy of
our service men who were being killed. She should have been banned from
entry into the United States. That is my own opinion only, but I must state
that it is absolutely correct. :-\
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
Nathaniel Taylor
dominus_...@yahoo.co.uk (Matthew Hovious) wrote:
> It is, at best, historically inaccurate to suggest that interest in
> proving lines of royal descent, however remote in time, is in some way
> exclusive to twentieth century Americans. Published works clearly
> prove otherwise. Take, for example, the entry for one George Mathew,
> Esq in Burke's "Landed Gentry". Already having served in the
> Coldstream Guards and in Parliament, and represented Britain beyond
> her shores as a Consul and as Governor of the Bahamas, Mr Mathew
> clearly had no need to inflate his ancestry in order to be accorded
> some importance. Yet the very first thing we learn about him is this:
> "18th in descent from King Edward I".
Thanks for these fascinating examples. I suspect the fashion for
claiming medieval royal or aristocratic ancestry was common to
middle-class persons in both England and the US, consumers of the
well-marketed cultural medivalism of writers, artists and interior
decorators throughout the 19th century, for example as explored in Mark
Girouard's _Return to Camelot: Chivalry and the English Gentleman_. I
remember reading, perhaps in Girouard, how the writer William Beckford
(early 19th century) boasted of his descent from *all* the (fruitful)
Magna Carta sureties.
Nat Taylor
Tim Powys-Lybbe
>
> In a message dated 8/6/2004 11:56:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> t...@powys.org writes:
>
> > I concluded therefore that the
> > current US interest in royal ancestry and titles was un-American.
> >
> > So far the only explanation of this un-Americanism is that they were
> > entitled to be illogical.
>
>
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> Fortunately, the United States of America also considers itself
> a "free" nation. As such each and every citizen has a right to
> consider anything correct that he/she desires to be correct.
Indeed that is what a madman does and as Chesterton once remarked, he
may be the most logical person in the world. Undoubtedly in any
country you can think what you like. The difference is when you act on
those thoughts, as did some 20 people did nearly three years ago.
What I am talking of is one of the early laws of the US constitution. If
a person (possibly the context is member of the government, I'm not
sure) accepts or uses a foreign title, you are breaking the law and thus
liable to punishment. Quite simply anyone who is breaking the core laws
of the constitution must be un-American. It may be that no-one here is
doing that but the emphasis on "royal ancestry" does not accord well
with this core principle of the constitution.
Why do you think the founding fathers included this precept in the
constitution?
marshall kirk
real. (It's dispiriting to contemplate the proportion of high-school
seniors who think Delaware is in Scandinavia ... or vice versa.) Some
of this may be due to a general deterioration in the quality of
pre-collegiate education, but there's another, perhaps more
fundamental, factor to be considered -- a long-term decrease in the
'value' of educational degrees (as indices of actual education)
analogous to monetary inflation.
In 1925, around 8% of Americans went to college. (And that was a
considerable increase over the previous generation.) By the 1970s and
'80s, the proportion was hovering at or near 50%. This was based on
the oversold notion that everyone really has equal potential, and that
if you could just give everybody a college education, they'd all be
well educated. In practice, it didn't work very well. Higher and
higher proportions of students began flunking out; the result was a
general lowering of the bar for baccalaureate degrees ... then
master's degrees ... then doctorates. A similar loosening of
standards was occurring, for the same reasons, *vis-a-vis* high-school
diplomas.
The data are hard to unearth, but exist ... at, for example, the
library of the Harvard Ed School. Based on tests of educational
attainment administered over many decades at various educational
levels, it appears that graduation from high school, in these latter
years, 'means' about the same, in terms of knowledge and skills
acquired, as graduation from the 9th grade in 1925; a bachelor's,
about the same as graduation from high school; a masters, about the
same as a bachelor's; and a doctorate, about the same as a master's.
(These are, I stress, *estimates* from admittedly heterogenous data,
but they're deliberately conservative -- insofar as they're in error,
it's probable that the inflation is greater than here suggested, by
about half a 'step.')
lostc...@yahoo.com (Bronwen Edwards) wrote in message news:<54ca55f1.04080...@posting.google.com>...
John Steele Gordon
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org> wrote in message
news:49944fd...@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
The language of the Constitution is as follows (Article I, Section 9): "No
Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person
holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent
of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any
kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state."
Please note that the individual states are perfectly free to hand out titles
(but they all, so far as I know, are forbidden to do so by their own
constitutions). And private citizens can accept whatever they can get from
foreign princes (memo to the Palace: I'll accept an earldom). Even office
holders in the federal government need only Congress's permission to accept
a title. It seems clear from the language that the Founding Fathers were
worried about public officials being bribed by foreign governments, not
violating republican principles. If there has ever been a Supreme Court
interpretation of this clause, I don't know of it.
The English government didn't much care for subjects accepting foreign
titles either. Thomas Arundell (ca. 1560-1639) was made a count of the Holy
Roman Empire by Rudolf II and Elizabeth I clapped him in the Fleet prison on
his return to England for accepting it without her permission.
There simply is no "core principle" of the Constitution against titles or
social distinctions. The Constitution, after all, was written by a group of
men who came overwhelmingly from the top ranks of society in an age that was
anything but egalitarian. Benjamin Franklin, by the way, was created a
marquis by Louis XVI, but before the Constitution was in place. So one of
the very authors of the Constitution itself held a major title.
JSG
Gordon Banks
me any real claim to being royal, noble, etc. The constitution forbade
titles because they didn't want an aristocracy setting up here. There
was no law against being descended from the aristocracy (thank
goodness), just putting forth claims of special privilege or accepting
titles from a foreign ruler. As I've said before, I'm as proud of my
Irish or my hillbilly ancestors as my Plantagenets, (in some ways,
prouder, 'cause I think they played better music, but that's another
story) but unfortunately, I can't trace the hillbillies back to before
they arrived, if that far.
There are very few in the US that claim titles and most of those are
just considered cranks, like the guy in New York who claims to be the
king of France.
If people are taking this dilute royal ancestry to mean they are
aristocratic or better than others, then they ARE acting against the
spirit of the constitution. My own royal ancestry, however, runs
through (probably illiterate) farmers in New England, so that would
really be silly. Also, when you consider that my first royal (king
Edward I) is about 24 generations back, there isn't a lot of royal DNA
left in me. I think most of us here are interested in it because we are
interested in history and feel connected with history through our
ancestry. Finding out what varied "races" we descend from also makes us
feel connected with people in other countries and cultures. We'd love to
know more about our peasant ancestors, but unfortunately, that is
unknowable, except in the aggregate.
P J Evans
>
> >
> > In a message dated 8/6/2004 11:56:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > t...@powys.org writes:
> >
> What I am talking of is one of the early laws of the US constitution. If
> a person (possibly the context is member of the government, I'm not
> sure) accepts or uses a foreign title, you are breaking the law and thus
> liable to punishment. Quite simply anyone who is breaking the core laws
> of the constitution must be un-American. It may be that no-one here is
> doing that but the emphasis on "royal ancestry" does not accord well
> with this core principle of the constitution.
>
> Why do you think the founding fathers included this precept in the
> constitution?
IIRC, this is an unratified amendment from the 1790s. I think it was
caused by too much experience with hereditary titles. (But I think the
hereditary titles were not much different from some of the wanna-be
hereditary elected officials we have in the USA now!) They may also
have worried that accepting a foreign title even as an honor would
create a presumption of loyalty to the giver and thus a conflict of
interest. Also remember that G. Washington was against 'foreign
entanglements'.
P J Evans
Sutliff
"John Steele Gordon" <ance...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:idRQc.24119$zc4.9...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
<snip>>
> There simply is no "core principle" of the Constitution against titles or
> social distinctions. The Constitution, after all, was written by a group
of
> men who came overwhelmingly from the top ranks of society in an age that
was
> anything but egalitarian. Benjamin Franklin, by the way, was created a
> marquis by Louis XVI, but before the Constitution was in place. So one of
> the very authors of the Constitution itself held a major title.
>
> JSG
This may be true for American born citizens, but does not pertain to
naturalized American citizens:
U. S. Code 8, Section 1448:
"In case the person petitioning for naturalization has borne any hereditary
title, or has been of any of the orders of nobility in any foreign state,
the petitioner shall in addition to complying with the requirements of
subsection (a) [omitted] of this section, make under oath in open court in
the court in which the petition for naturalization is made, an express
renunciation of such title or order of nobility, and such renunication shall
be recorded in the court as part of the proceedings."
The Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR 337.1) accordingly provides the
following:
A petitioner or applicant for naturalization who has borne any hereditary
title or has been of any of the orders of nobility in any foreign state
shall, in addition to taking the oath of allegiance prescribed in paragraph
(a) of this section, make under oath or affirmation in public an express
renunciation of such title or order of nobility, in the following form: (1)
I further renounce the title of (give title or titles) which I have
heretofore held; or (2) I further renounce the order of nobility (give the
order of nobility)to which I have heretofore belonged.
An example of this is when actor (Sir) Anthony Hopkins had to renounce his
knighthood when he became and American citizen.
In 1808-1809 (11th Congress) a Constitutional Ammendment was proposed:
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain
any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of
Congress,accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any
kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person
shallcease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of
holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.
Don't know how far this got, but it was not ratified.
Henry Sutliff
John Steele Gordon
"Sutliff" <sut...@redshift.com> wrote in message
news:10hac7h...@corp.supernews.com...
> Comment below:
>
> "John Steele Gordon" <ance...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:idRQc.24119$zc4.9...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> <snip>>
> > There simply is no "core principle" of the Constitution against titles
or
> > social distinctions.
[snip]
> This may be true for American born citizens, but does not pertain to
> naturalized American citizens:
>
> U. S. Code 8, Section 1448:
[snip] I did not know this (not being an immigratgion lawyer) and think it
is wrong. I wonder if it is even constitutional, making a distinction
between native-born and naturalized citizens not stated in the Constitution
(i.e. can't be president). Other provisions of the code fell for that reason
about forty years ago.
Fortunately I'm native-born so I can retain my august hereditary foreign
title as a Count of the Holy Roman Empire. Don't know what I'd do without
it.
> An example of this is when actor (Sir) Anthony Hopkins had to renounce his
> knighthood when he became and American citizen.
I note that he is still listed as a knight (CBE) in Whitaker's Almanack for
2003.
> In 1808-1809 (11th Congress) a Constitutional Ammendment was proposed:
[snip]
> Don't know how far this got, but it was not ratified.
Not far, I gather, as I had never heard of it, and the Oxford Companion to
American Law mentions it only in passing. After the 27th Amendment--proposed
in 1789 and adopted in 1992!--suddenly rose from the dead, Congress
rescinded all proposed amendments, I believe, so that can't happen again.
Recent ones have all had a seven-year deadline for ratification.
But none of this bears on my point regarding contemporary thought at the
time of the adoption of the Constitution. They were concerned with undue
influence, not with social hierarchy.
JSG