Fw: Royal ancestry and the next president of USA
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Royal ancestry and the next president of USA
>> The most royal wins: I wonder if this phenomenon isn't kin to the mental
>> tick responsible for some literary revisionists persisting in believing
>> the Earl of Oxford rather than Shakespeare must have written the plays?
>> A wacky belief that somehow excellence or genius correlates to pedigree.
>> A very odd fixation or mind set.
>
> When, in fact, the exact opposite is clearly the case. I can't think
> of any writer of great genius who _had_ royal descents (with the
> possible exception of Percy Shelley [although I don't know much about
> his ancestry] and Byron).
>
========= other writers with Royal Ancestors (no doubt there are more)
Graham Greene
Christopher Isherwood
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Robert Traill Spence Lowell IV
Robert Frost
Ted Morgan
Sir Walter Scott
Lews Carroll
H. P. Lovecraft
Alfred Lord Tennyson
Noel Coward
P. G. Wodehouse
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Tony Hoskins
usually have had no royal lines."
But, a larger point needs to be considered. It would be better instead
to say, "the most profound literary geniuses usually have had no *known*
royal lines."
The very faulty argument that class somehow correlates to talent is
absurd enough on its face, but adding to the mix that any given
genius/person of note's ancestry may be either largely known or largely
unknown renders "judgments" based on such combinations of chimera and
lacunae ridiculous.
Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California
wjhonson
> Graham Greene
> Christopher Isherwood
> F. Scott Fitzgerald
> Robert Traill Spence Lowell IV
> Robert Frost
> Ted Morgan
> Sir Walter Scott
> Lews Carroll
> H. P. Lovecraft
> Alfred Lord Tennyson
> Noel Coward
> P. G. Wodehouse
>
Leo a few observations on your currently presented royal line for
Christopher Isherwood.
You show Chris ascending to that William Harris who m Agnes Rutter or
Ruther. And then you show this William as a son to Joan Percy
daughter of Sir Thomas Percy by Eleanor Harbottle. I believe this
cannot hold.
William Harris, esq of Southminster, Essex was also High Sheriff of
Essex (I don't have the year). He left a Will dated 12 Sep 1556, and
proved 14 Nov 1556. He was buried at Southminster 16 Sep 1556.
This William married thrice. By his *first* wife he had eight
children, by his second wife, one child; and by this third wife Agnes
another four.
So all together William had 13 children before his death in 1556.
Can we all agree that William had to be *at least* say 35ish to have
13 children?
His purported mother Joan Percy as the *grand* daughter of a man
(Henry Algernon Percy, Earl of Northumberland) known to have been born
exactly on 14 Jan 1477/8 must be too young to be mother of this
William.
More research needs to be done on the Harris/Harries/Harrys family who
held Prittlewell and also perhaps the same or different family who
held Southminster.
Will Johnson
lostc...@yahoo.com
Seems like the real point to all of this is that royal descent, known
or simply hiding unrecognized in the DNA, has nothing to do with
genius of any kind. Nor has it anything to do with the talents
required to be head of state. The various presidents of the USA who
have known royal descents probably represent two things: first, the
standard percentage of Americans with such descents; second,
individuals whose pedigrees sparked interest in genealogists & were
therefore studied. I doubt that many of the presidents with royal
descents even knew much about their medieval ancestry in terms of
names, dates, etc. in unbroken lines. That most of them came from the
upper class of society is undisputed, but two noteworthy 20th Century
examples of those that did not include Reagan & Carter. Similarly,
royal descents have provided us with the less-than-stellar example of
our outgoing idiot. Any one of the three candidates would at least put
a brain in the White House. Don't get me started. Best, Bronwen
Leo van de Pas
P.G. Wodehouse said it, but in his opinion he was in his time the greatest
writer because he sold apparently the most books. I left the word genius out
and all the writers I mentioned have a worldwide reputation. I believe
Lawrence of Arabia's rates pretty high and he has royal ancestors too.
It is a fascinating thing, but their talents did not come from Geoffrey of
Anjou or Charlemagne, those royal descents are more of an accident
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
> I said "of great genius," didn't I? Out of the list you provided, I
> think only Frost, Scott, Carroll, and Tennyson would really qualify.
> And even those are considerably "less great" than Chaucer,
> Shakespeare, Pope, Dr. Samuel Johnson, Richardson, Keats, Wordsworth,
> Whitman, Dickens, Mary Anne Evans, Hardy, Henry James, Melville,
> Faulkner, all of whom utterly lack royal descents (at least as far as
> I know).
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1347 - Release Date: 3/27/2008
> 7:15 PM
>
>
M.Sjostrom
"...royal descents have provided us with the
less-than-stellar example of
our outgoing idiot..."
As far as idiocy, stupidity and suchlike features are
in question, in relation to genealogy, I believe the
standard folk wisdom is to blame the inbred birth of
the individual in question.
Were that to be used, the incumbent in the White House
is, in view of many, a severely inbred case of, no
doubt, full incest.
-
To assess the wisdom of the folk wisdom, a few could
be mentioned: the greatly inbred background of
Frederick the Great of Prussia (child of first
cousins), the perfect John II of Portugal (child of
first cousins), Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III
(child of first cousins), and James I of England
(child of first cousins).
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
M.Sjostrom
Leo van de Pas
Your message makes a lot of sense.
If we go to Henry Algernon Percy, 5th Earl of Northumberland and his sons,
the elder was born in 1502, and so Thomas would be born at the earliest in
1503. Let's assume Thomas's daughter Joan was his eldest child and he
fathered her, say 1520 and Joan became a mother in 1535 (I don't believe it)
then her son would have been 21 when he died in 1556, and to accept he had
three wives and 13 children is just impossible.
I hope you realise that by cutting Christopher Isherwood, you also have
removed Graham Greene from the list.
My sources were The Marquis de Ruvigny Mortimer-Percy Volume family tree II.
And Gary Boyd Roberts and his 500 Immigrants page 172.
and a third source
BUT Gary Boyd Roberts comes to the rescue in his 600 Immigrants page 370.
This lineage again makes Graham Greene and Christopher Isherwood descendants
of Edward I, king of England.
In my own system I have disconnected William Harris from Joan
Percy...........but the website will have to wait until the next update, we
just had one.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
John Foster
website by FTP whenever I feel like it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leov...@netspeed.com.au>
To: "wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Royal ancestry and the next president of USA
> In my own system I have disconnected William Harris from Joan
> Percy...........but the website will have to wait until the next update,
> we
> just had one.
>
> With best wishes
> Leo van de Pas,
> Canberra, Australia
>
Denis Beauregard
<ret...@austin.rr.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
>Are your website updates contracted out to India monthly? I update my
>website by FTP whenever I feel like it.
How many persons in your website ?
I update mine about 3 times a year, when I refresh the CD-ROM version
I sell. The web version has 28,000 families while the CD-ROM version,
covering more years, has about 60,000 families.
Denis
--
Denis Beauregard -
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur cédérom à 1770 - On CD-ROM to 1770
John Foster
My main family project has 485,000 individuals and 650,000 names, but
contains many duplicate records from fuzzy imports that weren't controlled
as tightly in the past. Merging continues.
A burn-to-CD-cutoff-freeze would explain a monthly schedule. Thank you.
Because of the massive discussion in this thread, I just envision updates as
being more dynamic. Otherwise, how would one answer the next question?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Denis Beauregard" <denis.b-at-f...@fr.invalid>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Royal ancestry and the next president of USA
Denis
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date: 12/1/2007
12:05 PM
Tony Hoskins
Bush family mystifies me. This is demonstrably untrue. Our prejudices
must not be allowed to blind the process of rational inquiry.
The ancestry of GWB is in fact typical of Americans his age, of largely
"old British" stock. He has no more inbreeding in his ancestry than many
others of his type, than in fact can be found in 3/4 of my own ancestry
(similar profile). What may mislead foreign observers is that Americans
of "old stock" tend to be much more thoroughly researched than Europeans
(or anyone else). So, the cousinages discernable in Bush's ancestry -
so similar to my own ancestry and probably many others among us - are
not at all unusual, and are certainly anything by inbred or incestuous.
Examples from my own rather Bush-like ancestry:
My parents are: 9th cousins (descents from Thomas and Phebe (Parkhurst)
Arnold); 9th cousins, once removed (twice) from John and Ann Barlow,
also 10th cousins (twice) from John and Ann Barlow; and 10th cousins,
once removed (twice) from John Pabodie.
My paternal grandparents: 9th cousins, once removed by descents from
Anders Bratt.
My paternal grandmother's parents: 6th cousins, once removed (twice) by
descents from Gideon and Sarah (Prudden) Allen; 7th cousins by descents
from Phineas and Ruth (Wood) Upham; 8th cousins (twice) by descents from
Thomas and Anna (Stacey) Fitch); 9th cousins (twice) by descents from
Francis and Anne (Goode) Wakeman; and 8th cousins, once removed (twice)
by descents from Sylvester and Sarah Baldwin.
And so on. A similar profile can be discerned in GWB's ancestry and
this is not illustrative of "inbreeding" - and to refer to it as
"incest" is absurd, if not a badly veiled attempt at insult.
This brings us to the consideration of "traceable proportions" of
ancestry, if you will. For instance, those of us with extensive 17th
century British ancestry in America are - I am sure - substantially more
highly proportionally traced (or traceable) than most Europeans.
Exceptions to this in Europe are of course in the highest nobility and
in royalty. When I traced the ancestry of a young Ysenburg friend of
mine some years ago, it was interesting to observe that over 60% of his
10th generation (if memory serves) were "repeats" (he also tallied an
astonishing 11 descents fom King George II.) So, I think when
non-Americans learn of the abundance of such typical old American
distant kinships it can mislead them into false assumptions.
In the ten years I taught genealogy in the Lyceum Program of the
Newberry Library in Chicago, I never had a class that did not in fact
end up containing a 9th or 10th cousin of mine. This is typical and not
at all exceptional of Americans of old British stock. If Europeans could
trace their ancestries with anything like similar proportionality, I am
confident they would find similar relationships - in fact, I suspect
geography and limited breeding opportunities there would show higher
incidences of tighter relationships still.
Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
Sonoma County Archivist
Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
Tony Hoskins
Clinton (established peanut farmers in Georgia, etc.)."
Further complication. That Clinton's father was Mr Blythe is suspect.
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 3/28/2008 9:55:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
hos...@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
That Clinton's father was Mr Blythe is suspect.>>
----------------------
You should spell out the complete argument :)
It's interesting.
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom00030000000001)
AdrianBnjmBurke
> In a message dated 3/28/2008 9:55:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>
>
> That Clinton's father was Mr Blythe is suspect.>>
>
> ----------------------
> You should spell out the complete argument :)
> It's interesting.
>
> **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
> Home.
yes my attention is peaked - was clinton's mother not "faithfull" to
mr blythe??? is there any credible evidence that clinton was not the
son of blythe???
Nathaniel Taylor
"Tony Hoskins" <hos...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
> Upon what basis Mr Sjostrom claims inbreeding and incest are rife in the
> Bush family mystifies me. This is demonstrably untrue. Our prejudices
> must not be allowed to blind the process of rational inquiry.
>
> The ancestry of GWB is in fact typical of Americans his age, of largely
> "old British" stock. He has no more inbreeding in his ancestry than many
> others of his type, than in fact can be found in 3/4 of my own ancestry
> (similar profile). What may mislead foreign observers is that Americans
> of "old stock" tend to be much more thoroughly researched than Europeans
> (or anyone else). So, the cousinages discernable in Bush's ancestry -
> so similar to my own ancestry and probably many others among us - are
> not at all unusual, and are certainly anything by inbred or incestuous.
<...>
> This brings us to the consideration of "traceable proportions" of
> ancestry, if you will. For instance, those of us with extensive 17th
> century British ancestry in America are - I am sure - substantially more
> highly proportionally traced (or traceable) than most Europeans.
> Exceptions to this in Europe are of course in the highest nobility and
> in royalty. When I traced the ancestry of a young Ysenburg friend of
> mine some years ago, it was interesting to observe that over 60% of his
> 10th generation (if memory serves) were "repeats" (he also tallied an
> astonishing 11 descents fom King George II.) So, I think when
> non-Americans learn of the abundance of such typical old American
> distant kinships it can mislead them into false assumptions.
By "substantially more highly proportionally traced" do you mean, having
a larger number of known ancestors, or having a larger number of
ancestors who have been the subject of published genealogical research?
I think the latter is a unique distinction for Americans of English
colonial descent. We are a large, well-off modern population which can
trace roots to a finite population of early colonists; the consequence
is that those early colonists have been more closely examined by a
century of genealogists than any similar cohort elsewhere. The result
is the known cousinages of so many Americans, linking celebrities and
politicians (whose genealogy is traced by hobbyists) and ordinary people
(who have traced their own genealogies), to a degree which may be
unknown in any other modern population. This anomaly has nothing to do
with our social knowledge of kinship, which is certainly much weaker
than in traditional, family-oriented societies, where one can recite
lists of ancestors and distant cousins.
Because it is so easy to trace distant cousinages with the powerful (and
distant cousinages between the powerful), to outsiders this gives a
false (or much exaggerated) impression that we are a cabalistic
oligarchy.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
Tony Hoskins
having a larger number of known ancestors, or having a larger number of
ancestors who have been the subject of published genealogical
research?"
I meant a larger number of known ancestors, attributable to some extent
to their being subjects of published genealogical research.
"I think the latter is a unique distinction for Americans of English
colonial descent."
I completely agree.
"This anomaly has nothing to do with our social knowledge of kinship,
which is certainly much weaker than in traditional, family-oriented
societies, where one can recite lists of ancestors and distant
cousins."
Perhaps. But, in such societies, I would expect the potential for
knowledge of wide-ranging ancestry (as seen in "old American" genealogy)
is severely limited by dearth of records. Another unique feature in the
American genealogical picture which we should not lose sight of is the
richness of 17th and 18th century documentation, uniquely allowing us
glimpses of immensely wide-ranging ancestry. More traditional societies
as you mention, though perhaps having as you suggest a unique richness
and "sense" of themselves, would nonetheless be skeletal in genealogical
knowledge when compared to our own.
"to outsiders this gives a false (or much exaggerated) impression that
we are a cabalistic oligarchy."
Very true.
Tony Hoskins
wjhonson
> Because it is so easy to trace distant cousinages with the powerful (and
> distant cousinages between the powerful), to outsiders this gives a
> false (or much exaggerated) impression that we are a cabalistic
> oligarchy.
>
> Nat Taylor
> a genealogist's sketchbook:http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
--------------------------
Stop it!
Yesterday I sent off my check to the
"Organization for descendents of Royalty and Lizards of the 12 High
Babylonian Families, who've been somehow overlooked and are Anxious to
Reclaim Their Positions of Power"..... Inc.
Are you telling me I've been scammed ??
I put in a claim for King of the Hurrians !
Will Johnson
Nathaniel Taylor
has a large cohort of documented ancestors. Iceland is an interesting
case. The native population is descended from a finite, isolated
population which is very well documented from the early modern period
back in many cases even to the colonization-era families (10th c.)
treated in the sagas (12th-14th c). And some years ago I remember
reading here about some lineage-linked database to cover all documented
medieval Icelanders and their descendants. I don't know what the state
of this effort is now; the database wasn't public when it debuted.
But anecdotally I have the impression that modern Icelanders are rather
less interested in this sort of ancestral research than Americans, so
despite such good raw materials I'm not aware that there's an extensive
modern historiography reconstructing medieval and early modern Icelandic
families and linking their intermarried descendants.
Perhaps it's because they're already aware that they're all related to
each other, so no one is much motivated to do much work reconstructing
their web of common ancestors.
wjhonson
confused situation.
*That* the original statement as to the ancestry of that William
Harris, known to have had 13 children before his death in Sep 1556 was
something like this:
"His father Arthur Harris by his wife Joan Percy daughter of Thomas
Percy, the son of the Henry Earl of Northumberland"
And that, using that, *some* genealogists made the bold assumption to
place this Thomas as a son to Henry FIFTH earl of Northumberland, but
on no good evidence.
However, there was not merely one Henry, but four, in a row, all Earls
of Northumberland. It may be entirely thinkable that this Thomas
Percy, with NO WIFE specified, but with a daughter Joan (percy)
Harris, actually belongs as a son to the Henry the THIRD Earl of
Northumberland.
Let's stir that around and see if anything shakes out.
Will Johnson
Peter Stewart
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nlta...@nltaylor.net> wrote in message
news:nltaylor-CEA594...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
<snip>
> Because it is so easy to trace distant cousinages with the powerful (and
> distant cousinages between the powerful), to outsiders this gives a
> false (or much exaggerated) impression that we are a cabalistic
> oligarchy.
Maybe - but then to insiders this gives a false (AND EVEN THEN much
exaggerated) impression that this ancestry may be intrinsically fascinating.
It aint.
Peter Stewart
Nathaniel Taylor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote:
I long ago stopped doing it myself, or looking at exactly who is related
to whom in those exercises (I used to take notes and surprise my parents
by showing them how they were related to popular figures they disliked).
But the thing continues to surprise people who hadn't realized how
interconnected this population is. That is the meta-interest of this
type of game.
Peter Stewart
Yes, but apart from this sort of amusing tease it would be hard to think of
anything less worth knowing than that some nonentity with a funny name was
also an ancestor of some nonentity with a famous name.
But I suspect it is really the inane compulsion to relate oneself through
"gateway" nonentities to English and Scottish royalty - especially with the
mere "recency" of the distant notable ancestor a point of imaginary
distinction - that makes historians like Katie Stevenson so disdainful of
genealogy.
Peter Stewart
Matthew Connolly
> Where do you draw the line with "great geniuses" I am not sure what or how
> P.G. Wodehouse said it, but in his opinion he was in his time the greatest
> writer because he sold apparently the most books. I left the word genius out
> and all the writers I mentioned have a worldwide reputation. I believe
> Lawrence of Arabia's rates pretty high and he has royal ancestors too.
>
> It is a fascinating thing, but their talents did not come from Geoffrey of
> Anjou or Charlemagne, those royal descents are more of an accident
>
> With best wishes
> Leo van de Pas
> Canberra, Australia
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
FWIW, I believe Jane Austen and George Orwell had royal ancestry too.
Tony Hoskins
through
historians like Katie Stevenson so disdainful of genealogy."
Very likely. But, what makes her so careless in her sweeping
pronouncements? I look for evidence of greater precision of thought and
expression from serious historians.
And, as to calling gateways like Charles Chauncy and Peter Bulkeley
"nonentities", see _ODNB_.
Tony Hoskins
John Foster
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Royal ancestry and the next president of USA
>
Leo van de Pas
my system of "Interesting descendants of Geoffrey of Anjou" and Jane Austen
was on the list but I did not see her.
I know that Geoffrey of Anjou is not the only medieval person with
interesting descendants, but he covers a very great deal. I should perhaps
have gone for Charlemagne as that covers even more. If I had then I would
not have missed Leo Tolstoi either.
I do not have George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) as yet in my system.
Someone mentioned Algernon Swinburne to me as well, and he is at present not
on the website either. However, his parents are. This person kindly gave me
a line of ancestry for Algernon Swinburne, and he definitely has royal
ancestors. He is a descendant of Edward I, King of England in at least 362
different ways.
Talking about numbers, in my own system at present I have a total of 9,742
ancestors for Algernon Swinburne. Then the computer counted those for his
father (4,856) and his mother (9.672). As I do not have over 14,000
ancestors for Algernon Swinburne, his father and mother must have ancestors
in common. When I deduct the number of his mother's ancestors from the
total, that leaves 70. Those 70 are therefor only ancestors of his father,
all others are common for father and mother. This shows the incredible
"intermarrying" amongst the ancestry of Algernon Swinburne.This happens, of
course, with many other people as well.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Connolly" <mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1348 - Release Date: 3/28/2008
10:58 AM
Tony Hoskins
total, that leaves 70. Those 70 are therefor only ancestors of his
father,
all others are common for father and mother. This shows the incredible
"intermarrying" amongst the ancestry of Algernon Swinburne."
Wow! That's amazing. Thanks, Leo.
Tony
Peter Stewart
"Tony Hoskins" <hos...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.1229.12067477...@rootsweb.com...
Of course I didn't say that all "gateway" ancestors are nonentities - but
where not so, their mere "gateway" status for posterity is never a sensible
reason to consider them noteworthy. If they were interesting enough in
themselves, why do descendants care so much about their further (much less
specifically royal and almost always English) ancestry? It's a cult, and
indeed a pathetic one that should have died away by now, founded mainly on
the social climbing fenzy of new money in the 19th century.
Peter Stewart
letiTi...@gmail.com
> "Nathaniel Taylor" <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote in message
>
> news:nltaylor-D4F19E...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>
>
>
> > In article <TfeHj.3616$n8.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> > "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Nathaniel Taylor" <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote in message
Do I detect the detestable Lord Pococurante?
Lord Pococurante: A Venetian nobleman. In Spanish, his name means
'little care'.
He represents bored self-indulgence and hedonism.
So, you are a bored, self-indulgent hedonist!
Fine, stay bored, self-indulgent, Monsieur Hedonist!
Charlemagne blood begat blood begat blood begat Robert the Bruce begat
me
I am thrilled with the genealogical trail, with me, and my memoir,
and am intrinsically fascinated with the begats down to me,
you see, Lord Pococurante, your problem is you are bored, self-
indulgent, and
a hedonist
Who cares what Katie Stevenson thinks anyways?
Is she your aunt, or your knitting coach?
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
> "Nathaniel Taylor" <nlta...@nltaylor.net> wrote in message
> news:nltaylor-D4F19E...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> I long ago stopped doing it myself, or looking at exactly who is related
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"John Foster" <ret...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1230.12067478...@rootsweb.com...
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
> I probably don't agree with myself entirely, Leo - but as I would have to
> recall exactly what I had said to be sure, I will never know...
Peter Stewart
jhigg...@yahoo.com
>
> Talking about numbers, in my own system at present I have a total of 9,742
> ancestors for Algernon Swinburne. Then the computer counted those for his
> father (4,856) and his mother (9.672). As I do not have over 14,000
> ancestors for Algernon Swinburne, his father and mother must have ancestors
> in common. When I deduct the number of his mother's ancestors from the
> total, that leaves 70. Those 70 are therefor only ancestors of his father,
> all others are common for father and mother. This shows the incredible
> "intermarrying" amongst the ancestry of Algernon Swinburne.This happens, of
> course, with many other people as well.
>
If I understand this correctly, this is what you are implying:
1) You have 70 people who are ancestors ONLY of AS's father (9,742
total ancestors minus 9,672 ancestors of his mother)
2) Thus 4,786 ancestors of his father are also ancestors of his mother
(4,856 minus 70)
3) Thus 4,886 people (9,672 minus 4,786) are ancestors ONLY of his
mother.
In other words, the pool of 9,742 known ancestors of AS has three
pieces:
70 belong to his father only
4,886 belong to his mother only
4,786 are shared between his father and mother.
An interesting breakdown....In addition to indicating substantial
inter-marriage, it might also suggest that much less is known about
the paternal ancestry - which might change the figures considerably.
It would be interesting to see how a similar breakdown applies in
other well-known (and well-researched) cases....
lostc...@yahoo.com
> > names, dates, etc. in unbroken lines. That most of them came from the
> > upper class of society is undisputed, but two noteworthy 20th Century
> > examples of those that did not include Reagan & Carter. Similarly,
>
> Mr. Carter's immediate background was higher-status than that of Mr.
> Clinton (established peanut farmers in Georgia, etc.).
And, so, that would be another example.
lostc...@yahoo.com
As much as I love to take pot-shots at Dubya, I also should admit that
I am his 10th cousin & so we share considerable ancestry (our most
recent common ancestors being Michael Beresford & Rose Knyvett). You
have to admit, though, that taking pot shots at Dubya is much like
shooting fish in a barrel. - Bronwen
lostc...@yahoo.com
And I am still looking for evidence that colonial-era immigrant to
Maryland, John Compton, was the secret son of Bishop Henry.
D. Spencer Hines
Quite Typical Of Peter's Damaged Noodle...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
M.Sjostrom
"...I love to take pot-shots at Dubya, I also should
admit that I am his 10th cousin..."
I find it only natural that cousins take pot-shots at
their cousins....Not exactly the same as sibling
rivalry, but next to siblings, whom can one know (&
understand) better to take pot-shots at, if not one's
cousins...
World's greatest wars have been waged between cousins,
I think.
---
Sorry that my previous attempt at sarcasm so abjectly
mystified Tony (who seemingly did not read that text
carefully).
____________________________________________________________________________________
Special deal for Yahoo! users & friends - No Cost. Get a month of Blockbuster Total Access now
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text3.com
Tony Hoskins
(who seemingly did not read that text carefully)."
Dear Mr Sjostrom:
I do recognized sarcasm. I to also sometimes read too quickly! But, I
also know sarcasm can be accompanied by misinformation of which the
purveyor is sometimes unaware, and about which his or her audience needs
to be informed. Sarcasm (like humor) needs to be rooted in fact to be
most effective.
Keep the humor coming, in any case!
I want to congratulate you again on your very interesting article about
Queen Helena of Sweden. And let me also cast my vote for more
non-British-medieval-genealogy, too!
Best wishes,
Tony
Matthew Connolly
> I do not have George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) as yet in my system.
Dear Leo, et al.
Several Orwell biographies recite the following ancestry:
1. Thomas (Fane), 8th Earl of Westmorland [Genealogics # I00099101]
2. Lady Mary Fane b.1741=Charles Blair 1743-1802
3. Charles Blair
4. Rev. Thomas Richard Blair 1802-1865=Frances Hare
5. Richard Walmesley Blair 1857-1939=Ida Mabel Limouzin 1875-1943
6. Eric Arthur Blair (George Orwell) 1903-50
I haven't looked into it any more closely, however.
Best wishes -Matthew
fr...@complex.is
> But anecdotally I have the impression that modern Icelanders are rather
> less interested in this sort of ancestral research than Americans, so
> despite such good raw materials I'm not aware that there's an extensive
> modern historiography reconstructing medieval and early modern Icelandic
> families and linking their intermarried descendants.
>
> Perhaps it's because they're already aware that they're all related to
> each other, so no one is much motivated to do much work reconstructing
> their web of common ancestors.
Well, no. We in Iceland have pretty much our entire national
genealogy online already, so that changes the way that genealogy work
is done. Anyone can look at the online database, browse his ancestors
and relatives, and check how he is related to anyone else.
In other words... the work is pretty much finished.
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/27/2008 10:50:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
fr...@complex.is writes:
Anyone can look at the online database, browse his ancestors
and relatives, and check how he is related to anyone else.
------------------------
Link?
Thanks
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
Leticia Cluff
>
>In a message dated 4/27/2008 10:50:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>fr...@complex.is writes:
>
>Anyone can look at the online database, browse his ancestors
>and relatives, and check how he is related to anyone else.
>
>
>------------------------
>
>Link?
Here's the link,
http://www.islendingabok.is/IServlets/index.jsp
but it might not help much, at least if your Icelandic is as
nonexistent as mine. I don't think you can consult the database
unless you're in it, which restricts it to Icelanders. They
haven't even bothered to provide an English interface.
I found this by Googling. At least it's in English:
http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=262375
Tish