How far back? And other curiosities
John0714
traced. Or, what mare todays limits? For example, how far back could Queen
Elisabeth of England trace her entire ancestery? Can anyone trace theirs back
farther? Who can trace their female line back the farthest? Their male lne?
I was once able to trace a branch of William the Conquerors' family tree to
present day New England on the internet, but every few generations it jumped
fro male to female and back bringing in many surnames.
If I am not mistaken everyone must have a direct male and female line back to
the beginning of the human race, regardless if none are currently known. Is
that true?:)
And, imagine if your ancesters never inbred for the last 2000 years, how many
of them would you have to have had 2000 years ago?
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I
will defend until YOUR DEATH your right to say it!
--Austin 3:17
JOHN A. MONTGOMERY
Dave Hinz
: I am curious how far back any family tree, in whole, and/or inpart can be
: traced. Or, what mare todays limits? For example, how far back could Queen
: Elisabeth of England trace her entire ancestery? Can anyone trace theirs back
: farther? Who can trace their female line back the farthest? Their male lne?
Dirct male line - to my grandpa's dad. That's it. Quite frustrating, but
there seem to be a lot of Hinz's in Germany, and the place that verbal history
states they came from doesn't exist (Gutenschlacht and/or Vergo).
Um. Direct female line? about 1820. How is this relavant, though? We just
missed my mom's mom's dad's dad's dad's mom's dad's mom's line, which
goes back to 1528 so far. Why limit the interest just to the all-male or
all-female extremes of the tree? Lots of good stuff in between.
: I was once able to trace a branch of William the Conquerors' family tree to
: present day New England on the internet, but every few generations it jumped
: fro male to female and back bringing in many surnames.
Well, that's interesting. I kinda *like* finding all those extra surnames.
You should also be aware that William the Conqueror claimed to be descended
from Thor, God of Thunder, who of course is the son of Wodin (Odin). Tread
*very* carefully in any genealogy which claims to include William - I'd
consider any to be highy suspect.
: If I am not mistaken everyone must have a direct male and female line back to
: the beginning of the human race, regardless if none are currently known. Is
: that true?:)
Most people did have a mother, and a father, so I'd say that this makes sense.
: And, imagine if your ancesters never inbred for the last 2000 years, how many
: of them would you have to have had 2000 years ago?
Well, figure 4 generations per century, so every 100 years you multiply the
number of people by 2^4, which means 100 years ago, you had 16 ancestors,
200 years ago it was 256, 300 years ago was 4096 folks, and so on. At some
point, the population of the county your people were from is less than the
mathematical expansion here, so yes, there were a lot of 5th cousins marrying
and so on. Then again - who here knows who all their 5th cousins are? I
expect nobody.
It's interesting, I suppose, to track just one edge of a family tree, but I
prefer to look at the whole tree. The forks, twists, (and loops...) make for
some interesting stories. Some of those loops have distant cousins marrying,
which give me a few folks who show up in more than one generation, through
different kids, as my ancestors. That gets a bit confusing - it's not bad when
they're second cousins and the generation is the same, but when a 4th generation
descendant of (couple) marries a 5th generation descendant of (couple), it gets,
well, hard to draw.
Dave Hinz
Chief Bottlewasher
> of them would you have to have had 2000 years ago?
Less than you might imagine. It is entirely possible, and entirely
probable that you have the very same person as a .... say, great,
great, great grandfather from two or even more trails of descent, and
he could well be also a mere great, great grandfather. It all has
to do with remarriages to women already in your lines somewhere. I
have one such GGG Grandfather responsible for two specific
progenitors by two different women .. and the removal of either of
the two would negate my existence. See my below tag line, however.
>
> I may disagree with what you have to say, but I
> will defend until YOUR DEATH your right to say it!
>
> --Austin 3:17
>
Now THIS is an alteration to the old axiom I can subscribe to. I will
be damned if I would ever defend to the death your right to vilify
my personal being. Any utterances one makes must suffer the consequences.
--
What genealogy means to me:
Researching genealogy is humbling. Once, while fondling an old original
marriage bann between far distant ancestors, I reflected that .....were it
not for what the ancient words in my hands portended,
I would not be there at all to read them. Sacred then, their memory to me.
Henry F. Brownlee
<NOSP...@usnavy.net> wrote:
>Less than you might imagine. It is entirely possible, and entirely
>probable that you have the very same person as a .... say, great,
>great, great grandfather from two or even more trails of descent, and
>he could well be also a mere great, great grandfather. It all has
>to do with remarriages to women already in your lines somewhere. I
>have one such GGG Grandfather responsible for two specific
>progenitors by two different women .. and the removal of either of
>the two would negate my existence. See my below tag line, however.
My wife's X-great grandparents are included in her paternal line and her
maternal line. And not only that, but in three different generations! I
fully understand of which you speak! <g>
(I had to use "X" instead of 7th 8th and 9th)
Henry F. Brownlee
Everyone keeps telling me I had ancestors;
I wish I could find out exactly who they were!
Douglas I. Chmara
cited author.]
In article <20000411101342...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
john...@aol.com says...
> I am curious how far back any family tree, in whole, and/or inpart can be
> traced. Or, what mare todays limits? For example, how far back could Queen
> Elisabeth of England trace her entire ancestery?
> JOHN A. MONTGOMERY
I saw a while back in a library a genealogical reference volume
published in the 1890s, I believe, that presented, in the early going, a
lineage from the then-reigning Queen Victoria back to Adam and Eve, via
various well-known monarchs including Charlemagne and Solomon. Queen
Elizabeth could therefore claim the same lineage, but I have no idea
whether she does. That's pretty tough to beat.
This line was not the primary focus of the book, but I have since
heard that it was not uncommon to include showpiece items like that in
older genealogies, (perhaps to establish the "seriousness" of the author
in his dedication to the truth?). I noted it only as a curiousity.
The relationships of the British Royal Family back to William the
Conqueror (1066) and beyond are extremely thoroughly documented, so they
may even be correct, or close to it.
Think of the number of families that would have a descendency from any
member of it (4th daughter of the 8th son of a 2nd cousin of the King in
1411, maybe illegitimate, they weren't all Dukes and Duchesses), and
they'd go back to that line, (William) in fact, whether they know it or
not. No doubt a lot of them ended up in North America.
I'm sure the line back to Adam and Eve is a little shakier. Not sure
which category the Charlemagne relationship falls into.
Regards.............Doug
Edel Codd
Edel
John0714 <john...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000411101342...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> I am curious how far back any family tree, in whole, and/or inpart can be
> traced. Or, what mare todays limits? For example, how far back could Queen
> Elisabeth of England trace her entire ancestery? Can anyone trace theirs
back
> farther? Who can trace their female line back the farthest? Their male
lne?
>
> I was once able to trace a branch of William the Conquerors' family tree
to
> present day New England on the internet, but every few generations it
jumped
> fro male to female and back bringing in many surnames.
>
> If I am not mistaken everyone must have a direct male and female line back
to
> the beginning of the human race, regardless if none are currently known.
Is
> that true?:)
>
> And, imagine if your ancesters never inbred for the last 2000 years, how
many
> of them would you have to have had 2000 years ago?
>
>
> I may disagree with what you have to say, but I
> will defend until YOUR DEATH your right to say it!
>
> --Austin 3:17
>
>
> JOHN A. MONTGOMERY
Liz
Has your family moved around a lot, or always stayed in the same town (or
even country).
I'm having problems just getting into the last century......
Thanks
Liz
John0714
>From: dh...@earth.execpc.com (Dave Hinz)
>Date: 4/11/00 10:45 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <38f34880$0$19...@news.execpc.com>
>
>John0714 (john...@aol.com) wrote:
>: I am curious how far back any family tree, in whole, and/or inpart can be
>: traced. Or, what mare todays limits? For example, how far back could Queen
>: Elisabeth of England trace her entire ancestery? Can anyone trace theirs
>back
>: farther? Who can trace their female line back the farthest? Their male lne?
>
>there seem to be a lot of Hinz's in Germany, and the place that verbal
>history
>states they came from doesn't exist (Gutenschlacht and/or Vergo).
>
>Um. Direct female line? about 1820. How is this relavant, though?
Why is it relevant to know how fast a horse can run or a plane can fly? To know
what is possible, at least in the present.
We just
>missed my mom's mom's dad's dad's dad's mom's dad's mom's line, which
>goes back to 1528 so far. Why limit the interest just to the all-male or
>all-female extremes of the tree? Lots of good stuff in between.
It is particularly interesting to see how far back one can trace one's surname.
Maybe even see it originate. And the farther back the better, IMHO:)
>: I was once able to trace a branch of William the Conquerors' family tree to
>: present day New England on the internet, but every few generations it
>jumped
>: fro male to female and back bringing in many surnames.
>
>Well, that's interesting. I kinda *like* finding all those extra surnames.
I was kind of hoping to find some Plantagenets:) You know genealogy is a
subject where people get bogged down in termonology. Many people think Henry
Vll and Vlll wiped out all Plantagenet blood. They were part Plantagenets
themselves, Vlll's mother was a Plantagenet. And the present royals are
descendants of Vll, who I repeat, also had Plantagenet blood and whose wife was
born a Plantagenet.
IIRC the Plantagenet surname originated with Henry ll's father. And legend has
it that one of his distant ancesters was the daughter of the devil, and it is
quite possible Henry ll believed it
>You should also be aware that William the Conqueror claimed to be descended
>from Thor, God of Thunder, who of course is the son of Wodin (Odin). Tread
>*very* carefully in any genealogy which claims to include William - I'd
>consider any to be highy suspect.
It seemed legitimate to me, unless ,of course, some lady was lying about who
the father was, or did not know, etc,)
>: If I am not mistaken everyone must have a direct male and female line back
>to
>: the beginning of the human race, regardless if none are currently known. Is
>: that true?:)
>
>Most people did have a mother, and a father, so I'd say that this makes
>sense.
>
>: And, imagine if your ancesters never inbred for the last 2000 years, how
>many
>: of them would you have to have had 2000 years ago?
>
>Well, figure 4 generations per century, so every 100 years you multiply the
>number of people by 2^4, which means 100 years ago, you had 16 ancestors,
>200 years ago it was 256, 300 years ago was 4096 folks, and so on. At some
>point, the population of the county your people were from is less than the
>mathematical expansion here, so yes, there were a lot of 5th cousins marrying
>and so on. Then again - who here knows who all their 5th cousins are? I
>expect nobody.
I figure that with 2 generations a century and no inbreeding you would have to
have way over a trillion (1,000,000,000,000 )ancestors 2000 years ago. And that
was just counting with my fingers and occasionally rounding down:) 1000
ancestors 500 years ago, 1,000, 000 a thousand years a go, a billion 1500 years
ago, a trillion 2000 years ago.
>It's interesting, I suppose, to track just one edge of a family tree, but I
>prefer to look at the whole tree. The forks, twists, (and loops...) make for
>some interesting stories. Some of those loops have distant cousins marrying,
>which give me a few folks who show up in more than one generation, through
>different kids, as my ancestors. That gets a bit confusing - it's not bad
>when
>they're second cousins and the generation is the same, but when a 4th
>generation
>descendant of (couple) marries a 5th generation descendant of (couple), it
>gets,
>well, hard to draw.
>
>Dave Hinz
>
John0714
>Date: 4/11/00 4:59 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <38F3A02A...@usnavy.net>
>
>> And, imagine if your ancesters never inbred for the last 2000 years, how
>many
>> of them would you have to have had 2000 years ago?
>
>probable that you have the very same person as a .... say, great,
>great, great grandfather from two or even more trails of descent, and
>he could well be also a mere great, great grandfather. It all has
>to do with remarriages to women already in your lines somewhere. I
>have one such GGG Grandfather responsible for two specific
>progenitors by two different women .. and the removal of either of
>the two would negate my existence. See my below tag line, however.
Maybe I am having trouble following you. Or you are having trouble following
me:) If your GGG Grandfather had two daughers, even by diferent mothers, and
descendents of the two daughters maried and had children, would that not be
inbreeding less than 2000 years ago? I said if your ancestors NEVER inbred
these past 2000 years. FDR was a descendent of one brother about 300 years ago
and Elinor was the descendant of the other, making FDR and E both descendents
of the brothers' father.
>> I may disagree with what you have to say, but I
>> will defend until YOUR DEATH your right to say it!
>>
>> --Austin 3:17
>>
>Now THIS is an alteration to the old axiom I can subscribe to. I will
>be damned if I would ever defend to the death your right to vilify
>my personal being. Any utterances one makes must suffer the consequences.
>
>--
>What genealogy means to me:
>Researching genealogy is humbling. Once, while fondling an old original
>marriage bann between far distant ancestors, I reflected that .....were it
>not for what the ancient words in my hands portended,
>I would not be there at all to read them. Sacred then, their memory to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
John0714
>Date: 4/11/00 5:28 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <38f3a67b....@Netnews.worldnet.att.net>
>>probable that you have the very same person as a .... say, great,
>>great, great grandfather from two or even more trails of descent, and
>>he could well be also a mere great, great grandfather. It all has
>>to do with remarriages to women already in your lines somewhere. I
>>have one such GGG Grandfather responsible for two specific
>>progenitors by two different women .. and the removal of either of
>>the two would negate my existence. See my below tag line, however.
>
>maternal line. And not only that, but in three different generations! I
>fully understand of which you speak! <g>
>
>(I had to use "X" instead of 7th 8th and 9th)
>
>Henry F. Brownlee
>Everyone keeps telling me I had ancestors;
>I wish I could find out exactly who they were!
>
She's my sister! (Slap) She's my daughter! (Slap) She's my daughter and my
sister!
Chief Bottlewasher
> Maybe even see it originate. And the farther back the better, IMHO:)
>
> >: I was once able to trace a branch of William the Conquerors' family tree to
> >: present day New England on the internet, but every few generations it
> >jumped
> >: fro male to female and back bringing in many surnames.
> >
I am incredulous at how many times I find people who "find out" their
ancestry extends 'all the way back to..." William the Conqueror, or
Charlelemagne, or Erik the Red, or ....
I guess that I am merely astounded that such drivel is posted in what
I thought was a serious forum for researchers of genealogy.
*~Free Spirit~*
Chief Bottlewasher <NOSP...@usnavy.net> wrote in message
news:38F62E4B...@usnavy.net...
> ====================
>
> I am incredulous at how many times I find people who "find out" their
> ancestry extends 'all the way back to..." William the Conqueror, or
> Charlelemagne, or Erik the Red, or ....
>
> I guess that I am merely astounded that such drivel is posted in what
> I thought was a serious forum for researchers of genealogy.
Why do you think it is drivel?
Heather Figueroa
obvious misspelling of "yahoo"......but it was returned as
non-existent.
IMO, if you want answers and information, post with an existing
account. A pseudonym is one thing......a fake email address is
another. I have to agree with the others here that you are a fraud.
A Yahoo account does offer a great degree of anonymity, but you even
faked that.
Can't blame people for not taking you seriously or for that matter,
even bothering to answer you.
Heather
"*~Free Spirit~*" <Fr...@yahhoo.com> wrote in message
news:UmoJ4.27$SD1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Carole
FitzAlan
back to such preposterous antiquity.
Grandma Helena said the family came out of Pommerania. I know she is lying
now. We came from Orion. Landed in a spaceship, 53 years ago. Of course,
we weren't the first on the planet.
Goodness, doesn't everyone know that Billy Graham created the world out of
Utah desert sand? That's why the Church of the LDS is so into Family
History. They invented it. Families I mean. (And the earth ISN'T round.
Else, why don't we fall off this planet, anyway? I mean, put a can of snuff
on a basketball, and it falls right off. It's flat, people. Fits better in
a plan rack that way.)
William the Conqueror, Charlemagne? Inventions of Hollywood, just like John
Wayne and those Pokemon things.
So when your mom and dad sit you down and explain where you came from...
You'll know the truth. (Test-tube from an Army Lab, from the "Soldiers of
the Future" breeding program. If you're out, reading this, you're a
reject.)
'nuff said.
Carole <tea...@seanet.com> wrote in message
news:38f69f1...@news.seanet.com...
Seanette Blaylock
And other curiosities":
I'm stalling out on both of my father's parents, and I actually knew
my grandmother when I was growing up!
Seanette Pierce Blaylock [seanette[at]impulse.net]
Searching for: GARDNER, PIERCE, HURST, WOODEN, YOUNG
Also interested in: ALLEN, APTHORPE, BERRETT, BLALOCK/BLAYLOCK, BONDGAARD, BOVEE,
COLLINS, DOSTER, FIELD, FRENCH, FRYER, GRAINGER, GRIFFEN, HAIGHT, HENDRICKSON, HIGBEE,
HORTON, JACKSON, JOHNSON, KEITH, KEYES/KEYS, LAND, LARSON, LAVENDER, MILLINGTON,
PEDERSON, POULSON, RUSHTON, SANSOM, SIBLEY, SNYDER, SOMMERS, STRINGHAM, TOONE, TYLER,
WALL, WHITNEY, WOODISON
P&D Schultz
> <...>
> I am incredulous at how many times I find people who "find out" their
> ancestry extends 'all the way back to..." William the Conqueror, or
> Charlelemagne, or Erik the Red, or ....
>
> I guess that I am merely astounded that such drivel is posted in what
> I thought was a serious forum for researchers of genealogy.
Guess you thought wrong, kinda.
If website information is all completely accurate, then I am a blood
relative of Jesus Christ. Through my mother, I am descended from the
immigrants William Carpenter (1608-1685) and his wife Elizabeth Arnold
(b. 1611). And get this (from a website not currently active):
"Her father, William Arnold was born on June 24, 1587 at Ilchester
and died at Providence, Rhode Island about 1676. He was a descendant
of the Royal Family of Wales, whose castles were at Galmorgan and
Abergavenny; William the Conqueror, King of England, Duke of Normandy;
Henry I, King of France; Charlaemagne, Emperor of the Holy Roman
Empire, King of the Franks; and reportedly of Joseph of Arimathea, an
uncle of the mother of Jesus. The Rev. C. C. Dobson's "Did Our Lord
Visit Britain?" (London, No date) states
that Joseph of Arimathea was a younger brother of the father of Mary,
and that when Mary's husband Joseph died young, Joseph of Arimathea
was made guardian of the young Jesus."
Now, that may be drivel, but it's pretty entertaining drivel, I think.
My favorite part is the unimpeachable-sounding source reference, old
reliable C.C. Dobson's "Did Our Lord Visit Britain?" with its
fascinating publishing data "(London: No date)."
That kind of stuff is too funny NOT to include in a family history.
\\P. Schultz
Chief Bottlewasher
Goodness, doesn't everyone know that Billy Graham created the world out of
Utah desert sand? That's why the Church of the LDS is so into Family
History.
===================================
Just curious .. what does Billy Graham have to do with the LDS?
Richard A. Pence
news:38F7B6DD...@erols.com...
> That kind of stuff is too funny NOT to include in a family history.
How did you miss Noah???
<g>
Regards,
Richard A. Pence, 3211 Adams Ct, Fairfax, VA 22030
Voice 703-591-4243 Fax 703-385-0971
Pence Family History <http://www.pipeline.com/~richardpence/>
Richard A. Pence
> FitzAlan wrote:
> > Goodness, doesn't everyone know that Billy Graham created
> > the world out of Utah desert sand? That's why the Church of
> > the LDS is so into Family History.
> Just curious .. what does Billy Graham have to do with the LDS?
Just curious. Why would you even ask? It's obviously a put-on, and a fun one
at that.
AJH
<richar...@pipeline.com> writes
>P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:38F7B6DD...@erols.com...
>> That kind of stuff is too funny NOT to include in a family history.
>
>How did you miss Noah???
>
--
AJH
For email address, remove the 'evil' number
Flores
Manuel.
Carole wrote:
>
> Doesn't ANYBODY understand or appreciate irony anymore??
>
> Carole
Carole
Praetorian
>
> Doesn't ANYBODY understand or appreciate irony anymore??
>
> Carole
Hmmmmm, looks as if you missed *that* poster's irony, Carole.
Chuck Wolfram
See below
Douglas I. Chmara <dch...@tht.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.135dd65ec...@news.tht.net...
> [This followup was posted to alt.genealogy and a copy was sent to the
> cited author.]
>
> In article <20000411101342...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
> john...@aol.com says...
> > I am curious how far back any family tree, in whole, and/or inpart can
be
> > traced. Or, what mare todays limits? For example, how far back could
Queen
> > Elisabeth of England trace her entire ancestery?
> > JOHN A. MONTGOMERY
> I saw a while back in a library a genealogical reference volume
> published in the 1890s, I believe, that presented, in the early going, a
> lineage from the then-reigning Queen Victoria back to Adam and Eve, via
> various well-known monarchs including Charlemagne and Solomon. Queen
> Elizabeth could therefore claim the same lineage, but I have no idea
> whether she does. That's pretty tough to beat.
> This line was not the primary focus of the book, but I have since
> heard that it was not uncommon to include showpiece items like that in
> older genealogies, (perhaps to establish the "seriousness" of the author
> in his dedication to the truth?). I noted it only as a curiousity.
> The relationships of the British Royal Family back to William the
> Conqueror (1066) and beyond are extremely thoroughly documented, so they
> may even be correct, or close to it.
> Think of the number of families that would have a descendency from any
> member of it (4th daughter of the 8th son of a 2nd cousin of the King in
> 1411, maybe illegitimate, they weren't all Dukes and Duchesses), and
> they'd go back to that line, (William) in fact, whether they know it or
> not. No doubt a lot of them ended up in North America.
> I'm sure the line back to Adam and Eve is a little shakier. Not sure
> which category the Charlemagne relationship falls into.
> Regards.............Doug
Seriously...that's how many American families trace their line back to antiq
uity. Get it back to William the Conqueror, and his lineage, and that of
his wife, (and, for that matter, Eleanor of Acquitaine) back to Charlemagne
is known and proved beyond doubt. The queen can trace it back, with
reasonable certainty, to Cerdic, 1st King of West Saxons, d. A.D. 534.
--
Respectfully,
Chuck Wolfram