Overall Reliability of Medieval Lineages
Andy
to the medieval era -- with or without paper documents to "prove" it.
Most of the discussions in this group involve connections to people
(royal or not) that lived in the 14th century, or earlier -- that's
about THIRTY generations ago! There are just TOO many (60, if you
count the genetic transmission of each proposed parent per generation)
possibilities for error -- false paternity, multiple wives (maybe even
of the same first name, which would confuse records even more),
transcription errors in records, errors in modern interpretations of
these records, etc., etc., etc. It just TAKES an awful lot of faith to
even PUT faith in a lineage extending back that far.
Genealogy also becomes more and more pointless the further back you go
(or "think" you are going) just because of the exponential growth of
possible ancestors with each generation -- even with inbreeding, most
people have millions of 14th century ancestors. Obviously, ALL modern
Europeans (as well as many individuals in neighboring populations) are
going to be descended from ALL Europeans in the 14th century who have
ANY descendants -- basically, if any one person in a population is
descended from some random 14th century person, then EVERYONE in that
population must be.
As both Sam Sloan and Spencer Hines have pointed out, this would
logically translate into ALL modern Europeans being descended from AT
LEAST Henry II or King John. Personally, I'd guess that ALL modern
Europeans are descended from AT LEAST Edward III by now, and that ALL
modern Brits are descended from AT LEAST (say) Richard of York (father
of Edward IV), if not Henry VII (and thus Ed IV) or even James I (and
probably many other monarchs, via undocumented bastard children). And
I'm not even going to START speculating about descents from monarchs
of other European countries...
Bottom line -- if you have any European ancestry, simple
mathematical/biological odds prove your royal descent better than any
lineage can.
Albert B. Bach
From a biological viewpoint, from the genetics aspect of it, certainly
a lot of these "lines" could be out and out wrong.
And perhaps all those with British ancestry, maybe they could find,
genetically, a link to Edward III, or someone of that caliber, despite
not having a "gateway" ancestor who landed with Winthrop's Fleet.
Maybe. But for every King and his nobles and VIPs, however, there are
a million merchants, tanners, charcoal makers, and farmers. The odds
that their "lines" outweigh the noble ones are pretty good I'd say.
But I think the medieval lineages which we concentrate on here,
crafted in the age that they were, are more about inheritance and the
transmission of the "House" or "Family," and not the genetic realities
so much.
Let’s say our subject is the son of a man with two wives.
Further, the father of one of the wives passes on an inheritance. If
that inheritance passes to this son’s brother, and not a single
provision is made for our subject, and if we are absent the birth
dates, we could reasonably ASSUME that they were half-brothers, and
assign the subject to the mother whose father didn’t pass
anything on to him. (Never mind that we could probably never discover
he was really the son of the milkman.)
It IS an assumption based on who got what, but remains a clue,
valuable perhaps, as to the reality.
Lacking proofs of paternity (DNA samples) why not accept what our
subjects accepted with regards to their families and ancestry? We
know they did. What they accepted was carrying legal weight. What
they traced with regards to their "family tree" determined who was
getting what, who became/remained noble, who did not, and so on.
OF COURSE, bear in mind, whereas our task is far easier than trying to
get paternity testing done for Edward III, for instance, it is still
no cakewalk.
We can no more make things up to craft these lineages because we
choose to track tradition and not genetics. No, the family tree can
be accurate genetically, and failing that, it ought to at least be
made accurate with regards to reality, and lacking that, why deny them
their own closely held traditions?
As you rightly say, it really doesn't matter. No one is trying to
research whether or not a link with the Hapsburgs exists with them to
determine whether or not to have children because they don’t
want their offspring to have those funny chins. The Hapsburgs' genes
are long diluted into obscurity.
Maybe back in 1800 my family left an inheritance in Scotland. Maybe I
could claim it. My claim won't necessarily need to be based on
paternity testing as much as just legally establishing I was a
descendant.
My point is that earlier than modern science, we do have to rely on
other information to establish these connections. And it’s the
joy of discovery with which we pursue them. It’s a treat
establishing a link to the FitzAlans, and it’s fun working on
confirming it, and it’s educational discovering the history of
the period in which those forebears lived.
And if the mathematical odds are enough for some, I've seen "kite
surfing" and if they are looking for some other hobby, that really
looked like fun.
andy...@email.com (Andy) wrote in message news:<42a81852.02010...@posting.google.com>...
> <snip> There are just TOO many (60, if you
> count the genetic transmission of each proposed parent per generation)
> possibilities for error -- false paternity, multiple wives (maybe even
> of the same first name, which would confuse records even more),
> transcription errors in records, errors in modern interpretations of
> these records, etc., etc., etc. It just TAKES an awful lot of faith to
> even PUT faith in a lineage extending back that far.
<snip>
Brad Verity
> to the medieval era -- with or without paper documents to "prove" it.
Well, who is "most people"? Americans? British? Nigerians?
Mongolians? Most Americans (I'm American, so that's what I'm familiar
with) can reliably trace their ancestry only to their grandparents or
great-grandparents because that's as far back as their knowledge goes
and they're not practicing genealogists. However, for those who do
decide to research their family history, most Americans can reliably
trace back to at least their immigrant ancestors, as the records are
fairly numerous and catalogued. Beyond the immigrants, you run into
problems as you have to research in another country.
> Most of the discussions in this group involve connections to people
> (royal or not) that lived in the 14th century, or earlier -- that's
> about THIRTY generations ago! There are just TOO many (60, if you
> count the genetic transmission of each proposed parent per generation)
> possibilities for error -- false paternity, multiple wives (maybe even
> of the same first name, which would confuse records even more),
> transcription errors in records, errors in modern interpretations of
> these records, etc., etc., etc. It just TAKES an awful lot of faith to
> even PUT faith in a lineage extending back that far.
There's always going to be certain margin for error, but I feel you're
exaggerating the occurence. False paternity? I assume you mean
illegitimacy - given the thousands of ancestors each living person
has, it's safe to assume we all have an illegitimate line or two. As
for assuming some of our male ancestors were not in fact the true
father, we can only go on what evidence exists. If our female
ancestor was married, and her child was born during the marriage, we
have to assume the husband was the father.
Errors in records through transcription are going to occur, but this
newsgroup has shown how rare these actually were, especially when it
came to English medieval legal documents, in which great care was
taken. Search the archives for threads on Elizabeth Tomlinson - it
goes into great detail about a legal record regarding her and the
possibility of clerical error.
Modern interpretations of the records. Genealogy evolves just like
any other science. There was a huge boom in Britain in medieval
genealogy in the mid to late 19th century. Given the tools they had
at the time, amazing work was done by the genealogists. But a lot
more evidence has come to light in the past century, and some of their
work has turned out incorrect. Par for the course.
> Genealogy also becomes more and more pointless the further back you go
> (or "think" you are going) just because of the exponential growth of
> possible ancestors with each generation -- even with inbreeding, most
> people have millions of 14th century ancestors. Obviously, ALL modern
> Europeans (as well as many individuals in neighboring populations) are
> going to be descended from ALL Europeans in the 14th century who have
> ANY descendants -- basically, if any one person in a population is
> descended from some random 14th century person, then EVERYONE in that
> population must be.
Maybe. I read in ROYAL BLOOD by Bertram Fields that the population of
England about the time of Richard III (late 15th century) was about
two-and-a-half million, total. I'd wager that a good less than 5% of
those alive then could claim descent from Edward I. The other 95% is
quite a large pool of folks to have as possible ancestors.
> As both Sam Sloan and Spencer Hines have pointed out, this would
> logically translate into ALL modern Europeans being descended from AT
> LEAST Henry II or King John.
It's an educated guess that might very well be the case.
> Personally, I'd guess that ALL modern
> Europeans are descended from AT LEAST Edward III by now,
This is much less likely - Edward III's daughters and granddaughters
did not branch out into continental marriages like those of previous
English monarchs. Philippa of Lancaster's marriage to the King of
Portugal probably leads to most everyone in the Almanach de Gotha, but
there are certainly millions of Europeans who are disconnected from
the European noble houses.
> and that ALL
> modern Brits are descended from AT LEAST (say) Richard of York (father
> of Edward IV), if not Henry VII (and thus Ed IV) or even James I (and
> probably many other monarchs, via undocumented bastard children).
This isn't true at all. The descendants of James I are almost all
accounted for - and it is not everyone in Britain, even factoring in
the illegitimate lines.
An attempt to document all of the descendants of Henry VII was made in
the early 20th century by the Marquis de Ruvigny in his PLANTAGENET
ROLL OF THE BLOOD ROYAL series. As I recall, not every line could be
brought forward, but what it showed is that almost all of the
descendants of Mary (Tudor), Duchess of Suffolk, were in the 19th
century British aristocracy.
You have to take into account the social order through the centuries -
up until the 19th century it was very hard for someone whose family
did not hold a coat of arms to marry into a family that did, and until
the 20th century, it was very hard for a child of a peer to marry a
"commoner." This makes descents from an English monarch subsequent to
Edward III very rare for those people not descended from British
peerage or gentry families.
Yes, social norms have greatly changed in the last century, and you
can even find a few suburban Americans today among the descendants of
Queen Victoria, but it will still take several generations to spread
into the entire gene pool.
There are certain key descendants of the Plantagenet kings who become
gateways for new strata of society to royal ancestry (call them
Gateway Decendants).
For Edward III, one Gateway Descendant is Elizabeth (Percy), Lady
Clifford, whose descendants spread out into the baronial and gentry
families of Yorkshire and the other Northern counties.
For Edward I, two Gateway Descendants are Margaret (de Bohun)
Courtenay, Countess of Devon, whose descendants branched out into
almost all the gentry families of Devon and Cornwall. And Edward, 4th
Lord Despenser, whose issue quickly spread from the nobility/baronial
ranks to the knight/gentry class.
> And
> I'm not even going to START speculating about descents from monarchs
> of other European countries...
I haven't researched them, either.
> Bottom line -- if you have any European ancestry, simple
> mathematical/biological odds prove your royal descent better than any
> lineage can.
Yes, a royal descent from a 13th century or previous monarch for most
people with European ancestry is highly likely. Yet the mathematical
odds are never as good (or fun) as determining the line of descent.
Regards, ---------Brad Verity
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
logically translate into ALL modern Europeans being descended from AT
LEAST Henry II or King John."
Actually, I never said anything of the sort.
Further, you haven't even defined what you mean by "modern Europeans".
Deus Vult.
"Much have I travelled in the realms of gold, And many goodly states and
kingdoms seen; Round many western islands have I been, Which bards in
fealty to Apollo hold." -- John Keats [1795-1821] -- Poems [1817] -- "On
First Looking Into Chapman's Homer"
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Francisco Antonio Doria
century. My family is (reasonably) well-documented in
Brazil; my oldest ancestor here in the male line was
born in 1550, and I'm in the 12th generation down from
him. In Portugal, hum, the genealogy is ok, so-so, but
acceptable (we have to rely on lineage books) and in
five more generations we reach the late 14th century.
So, 17 generations.
chico
--- Andy <andy...@email.com> escreveu: > I really
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCities. É fácil e grátis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/
Chris Phillips
> I really doubt that most people can RELIABLY trace their ancestry back
> to the medieval era -- with or without paper documents to "prove" it.
> Most of the discussions in this group involve connections to people
> (royal or not) that lived in the 14th century, or earlier -- that's
> about THIRTY generations ago! There are just TOO many (60, if you
> count the genetic transmission of each proposed parent per generation)
> possibilities for error -- false paternity, multiple wives (maybe even
> of the same first name, which would confuse records even more),
> transcription errors in records, errors in modern interpretations of
> these records, etc., etc., etc. It just TAKES an awful lot of faith to
> even PUT faith in a lineage extending back that far.
> Bottom line -- if you have any European ancestry, simple
> mathematical/biological odds prove your royal descent better than any
> lineage can.
I suspect you'll get quite a lot of replies to that message. I'd just make
two points.
I think most of the "possibilities of error" mentioned are red herrings to
some extent. Certainly much of the point of medieval genealogy is getting
the interpretation of records right - and that includes evaluating the
likelihood that they contain errors. It's always necessary to find evidence
for which medieval wife was the mother of a particular child, rather than
grabbing the first wife that comes to hand (so to speak). One thing to
remember is that where maternal lines are traceable at all in medieval
times, the evidence often comes from the inheritance of land, so there is
often less scope for error than you might imagine.
The point about "false paternity" is valid, and it's fair to point out that
the probability of error accumulates with the increasing length of a line of
descent. One other point though, is that it's quite false to assume that
everyone researching medieval genealogy is trying to prove a "royal
descent". In fact, I'd go further, and suggest that many people find it
interesting to study problems of medieval genealogy, whether the people
concerned are their ancestors or not. That's the impression I get from this
list, anyway. And of course, medieval genealogy is in itself a respectable
branch of medieval history .
Chris Phillips
PDel...@aol.com
a) The great debunker of spurious genealogies, Horace Round, c 1900 said
that if he were given any Briton who could claim a minimum of 3 generations
of British ancestry, he could trace one of their lines back to a British
Monarch. This, at the time was contested. He then called on anyone with the
required degrees of Englishness, ranging from Ag-Labs to respectable
Professionals to give him their known antecedents. 20 or so individuals
answered or were drummed into giving their basic details, most of them
Ag-Labs, and with the modest tools he had he was able to prove descent from
British monarchs!
b) a 'Commoner' was/is a person who does not hold an hereditary title. The
Nobility and the Gentry did and do intermarry ad infinitum, there were many
daughters who needed to be married off ! In fact this state remains much the
same now as it always did. Of the 100 or so people I know well, all are
entitled to bear Arms, some are hereditary peers and others have married into
Peers' families - their income though does not necessarily reflect the 'top'
drawer of British Money.
regards,
Peter de loriol
Andy
> Well, who is "most people"? Americans? British? Nigerians?
> Mongolians?
Most people, including those populations. Pretty much anyone without a
solid link to the particular person (for the sake of this discussion,
say a European royal) in the last 250 years or so -- anything prior is
going to be suspect due to the high number of generations/genetic
transmissions (again, both parents per generation) that would have to
have occurred JUST SO in order for the lineage to be perfectly
accurate.
> Most Americans can reliably trace back to at least their immigrant ancestors, > as the records are fairly numerous and catalogued.
Well, who are "most Americans"? Most Americans like myself (caucasian
mutts whose ancestors have been festering here long enough not to know
of any immigrant origins) are going to have a lot of difficulty going
back much further than, say, 1820-1850 using primary sources. Why's
this? Because Americans didn't even start keeping any official records
(birth, marriage, death) until the beginning of this last century.
Some colonial states have incomplete records for earlier periods, but
what good are those if you can't connect the people in those records
to the people who lived during the periods in which there were no
records to identify their origins? I don't consider secondary sources
(family genealogies, LDS records, census records in which
relationships can only be inferred/guessed) to be very reliable ways
to construct a genealogy -- yet these are the "sources" that most
American genealogists rely upon. And, these "sources" are the
foundation on which many of this group (again, most American
genealogists) link back to their medieval ancestors.
>I assume you mean illegitimacy - given the thousands of ancestors
each living >person has, it's safe to assume we all have an
illegitimate line or two.
It's a lot higher than that. According to one study, over 10% of
children born today are secretly illegitimate (and this was based only
on exclusion by blood types, so I imagine that DNA tests would raise
that number even higher). If you apply this figure to a thirty
generation lineage (say, to Edward III of England), where at least (on
average) 50% of the line carriers are male, there is a 100% chance
that at least ONE of those line carriers did not actually father one
of the children -- and this would invalidate the entire lineage.
> An attempt to document all of the descendants of Henry VII was made in
> the early 20th century by the Marquis de Ruvigny in his PLANTAGENET
> ROLL OF THE BLOOD ROYAL series. As I recall, not every line could be
> brought forward, but what it showed is that almost all of the
> descendants of Mary (Tudor), Duchess of Suffolk, were in the 19th
> century British aristocracy.
"Almost all" of his descendants means nothing if there were lines that
couldn't be "brought forward."
Andy
> "As both Sam Sloan and Spencer Hines have pointed out, this would
> logically translate into ALL modern Europeans being descended from AT
> LEAST Henry II or King John."
> --------------------------------------
>
> Actually, I never said anything of the sort.
Not in so many words. Sam Sloan made the statement about King John a
few weeks ago (my oversight) and you said the following about descents
from Henry II a couple of days ago:
"A descent from Charlemagne, or William The Conqueror or Henry II and
Eleanor of Aquitaine is just no big deal and doesn't put one into any
sort of special club ---- although given human nature some pretend
that
it does."
For what group/population are such descents "no big deal"? If you're
referring to modern Europeans (see definition below), then I couldn't
agree more.
> Further, you haven't even defined what you mean by "modern Europeans".
People of predominantly European ancestry currently living in Europe.
The...@aol.com
Hello Andy, Chris, Chico, et al.,
Ditto to all the foregoing (from Chris, Chico and a few others, anyway).
There are many reasons for undertaking the study of genealogy in
general, and medieval genealogy in particular. A supposition of royal
descent may suffice (perhaps must suffice) for some; one or more forms of
pleasure can be derived from actually establishing a line of descent, whether
from the high (e.g., Edward 'Longshanks') or the low (Fulbert of Falaise ?).
The pudding is in the proof.
John *
* John P. Ravilious
Blair Southerden
anything the members had to be from the select group of peers and gentry who
owned land or engaged in activities that were recorded in the various rolls.
These groups were a small proportion of the population as a whole. It is
only a small number of people who will be able to trace their history back,
simply because their ancestors were not landowners or armigers.
I can trace my family back to c1500 and my 8 x great grandfather (so 10
generations prior to me in 500 years) and I have a hypothesis about the
origins of the family in the mid 13th century. Despite learning quite a lot
(and I know there is more to find) about the early ones, there are no
connections to royalty, and only the odd baron and some knights.
Perhaps I should claim exclusivity for this lack of noble lineage :-))
Blair
S.B. Southerden from Winchester, Hampshire
Researching Kearton; Kirton; Kyrton; de Querton
blai...@globalnet.co.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Albert B. Bach" <postal...@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Overall Reliability of Medieval Lineages
<snip>
Luke Potter
any 'proven' genealogy is fair.
However the point which he has missed is that from a historical perspective
the pertinent issue is not always who an individual's actual genetic
ancestors were, but instead who he thought they were. We have all seen
numerous fictitous pedigrees, such as those created for social climbing
Tudor gentry, or mythical regal pedigrees that disappear into the foothills
of Mount Olympus, and as genealogists have easily cast them aside as
genealogically incorrect. However the historical interest lies in how far
the individuals at the bottom of these pedigrees believed them themselves,
and what this concept of their origins had upon them personally.
A genealogist would be delighted to discover evidence that the
great-great-aunt of an individual named A was a woman named E, but to a
historian studying A, the only relevance of E would be if A actually knew E
existed, or if E had someother direct impact upon the life of A, other than
just genetics. Similarly if A believed that X was his grtx13 ancestor, and
the founder of his family estates/name/family in the New World etc, it is
this which has the personal impact upon individual A, not the fact that his
grtx4 grandmother actually had an unrecorded fling with Jack Jones, and A
was really descended from folk from Snowdonia in Wales.
Genealogy has always provided an individual with a personal perspective on
history. We, at our 21st century vantage point, are just as keen as earlier
generations to examine and find the true descent of our ancestors and
families to create our own perspectives, yet the personal genealogical
perspectives of any one of our actual ancestors may have based upon a
different set of 'truths' and 'facts' and been utterly different from the
21st century perspective which we uncover. From a genealogical standpoint
these 'truths' and 'facts' may later be proved to be fictitious, or from a
genetic standpoint DNA may prove that supposed proven descents are not all
they seemed to be, but from a historical standpoint the interest lies in who
believed what, when, and why!
Luke Potter
Huntingdon,
England
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
back far enough?
"Much have I travelled in the realms of gold, And many goodly states and
kingdoms seen; Round many western islands have I been, Which bards in
fealty to Apollo hold." -- John Keats [1795-1821] -- Poems [1817] -- "On
First Looking Into Chapman's Homer"
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Blair Southerden" <blai...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:016a01c19a9b$f59d0000$5ce993c3@iunfd...
Renia
> Surely the key point about medieval lineage is that in order to trace
> anything the members had to be from the select group of peers and gentry who
> owned land or engaged in activities that were recorded in the various rolls.
> These groups were a small proportion of the population as a whole. It is
> only a small number of people who will be able to trace their history back,
> simply because their ancestors were not landowners or armigers.
>
> I can trace my family back to c1500 and my 8 x great grandfather (so 10
> generations prior to me in 500 years) and I have a hypothesis about the
> origins of the family in the mid 13th century. Despite learning quite a lot
> (and I know there is more to find) about the early ones, there are no
> connections to royalty, and only the odd baron and some knights.
I've been saying something similar to this for some time regarding my own
family, who were armigerous landowners, whose descendants and relatives are
splattered all over the peerage. Still no royal ancestors. Not that I'm
bothered, but I've said it before, it just amazes me how many Americans can
attach themselves to royalty, when we Brits have such trouble.
Renia
Carpenter, Charles
-----Original Message-----
From: andy...@email.com [mailto:andy...@email.com]
>Most people, including those populations. Pretty much anyone without a
>solid link to the particular person (for the sake of this discussion,
>say a European royal) in the last 250 years or so -- anything prior is
>going to be suspect due to the high number of generations/genetic
>transmissions (again, both parents per generation) that would have to
>have occurred JUST SO in order for the lineage to be perfectly
>accurate.
"Perfect accuracy" isn't required for a royal (or any other single ancestor)
lineage to be valid. It doesn't matter which wife of Edward I one is
descended from, one is still a descendant of Edward I. Similarly, it
doesn't matter which wife of a male GARD one is descended from. One need
only be convinced of one parentage per generation. Let's put this another
way: can one be certain that one single person is the child of some other
single person? Absent eye-witness accounts (I observed the birth of both
children, and so know at least that both are children of my wife . . .), one
has to apply reason. Knowing my wife and her circumstances, and having been
around for some time (even more than 9 months!) prior to the birth of my
children, I am quite sure that they are in fact My children. If that sounds
to you like a leap of faith, you are living in a different logical universe
from mine, and need read no further. My parents are each convinced that I
am the child of both of them. Obviously as we get back a little further, we
have less evidence to look at in deciding whether or not to credit the
public record. Still, it only has to be half right in order for a
particular line to work.
> Most Americans like myself (caucasian
>mutts whose ancestors have been festering here long enough not to know
>of any immigrant origins) are going to have a lot of difficulty going
>back much further than, say, 1820-1850 using primary sources. Why's
>this? Because Americans didn't even start keeping any official records
>(birth, marriage, death) until the beginning of this last century.
Huh?
>Some colonial states have incomplete records for earlier periods,
The people living in the towns in those state for which records are extant
were not "Americans?"
>but what good are those if you can't connect the people in those records
>to the people who lived during the periods in which there were no
>records to identify their origins?
Now we come to it. YOU can't connect to a colonial line, and so think that
therefore probably nobody can. I think, though, that you'd find, if you
looked into it, that 10s of millions of people now alive can link to
colonial New England (for example). Considering that 10s of millions more
are descended from Ellis Island (or later) immigrants, I'm not sure that
it's correct to say that even a majority of people with colonial European
ancestry could connect to some significant portion of it if they really
wanted to.
You ignore a more important body of public record, one that has been kept
"religiously" in every part of the United States from the earliest
settlement by Europeans and their descendants: land records. And wills.
>I don't consider secondary sources
>(family genealogies, LDS records, census records in which
>relationships can only be inferred/guessed) to be very reliable ways
>to construct a genealogy -- yet these are the "sources" that most
>American genealogists rely upon.
Family records and ambiguous census records are evidence to be weighed. I
agree with you that in the absence of other evidence, they would be
insufficient to prove most links. I am certain that my opinion on this is
shared by almost everyone here. It is certainly shared by every reputable
genealogist I've ever met.
>And, these "sources" are the
>foundation on which many of this group (again, most American
>genealogists) link back to their medieval ancestors.
Sounds like a leap of faith on your part.
>According to one study, over 10% of
>children born today are secretly illegitimate (and this was based only
>on exclusion by blood types, so I imagine that DNA tests would raise
>that number even higher). If you apply this figure to a thirty
>generation lineage (say, to Edward III of England), where at least (on
>average) 50% of the line carriers are male, there is a 100% chance
>that at least ONE of those line carriers did not actually father one
>of the children -- and this would invalidate the entire lineage.
First, extrapolating from current conditions to the past is a pretty serious
logical fallacy. The social and cultural conditions are sufficiently
different now from Puritan New England, (or Tudor England) that I think it's
a pretty tough go to say that the same, or even a similar percentage should
be applied. And surely even today, I suspect that the 10% is not evenly
divided across various social and cultural lines. Second, your math is bad.
It would have to be, because you've just said that for every line that could
be traced to Edward III, there is a 100% chance that it fails -- thus, there
are no persons now alive who descend from Edward III. Since the exact same
logic applies to any person other than Edward III, what you're telling us is
that there is no chance that any of us is descended from anyone in the 14th
century. As a matter of fact, though, we know that each of us is descended
from thousands of people alive during the 14th century. (I know, your
answer is "yes, but it is impossible to tell which ones." This is based on
a fallacy, too)
Here's how your statistical fallacy works: .9 to the thirtieth power is
effectively zero. Thus, not possible. It's easy to see the flaw, though,
by looking at a piece of the thread. You can assume that there's a 90%
chance that my son is mine, a 90% chance that I'm my father's, a 90% chance
for his father, and 90% more for his and what do you have, using your
method: a 65% chance that my son is lineally descended from a man who died
in 1944, and was known to people now alive. Photographs exist of all the
men here. 65% might seem valid in a world where the 10% doubt figure was
the only evidence to go on. I'm here to tell you, though, that there is a
better than 2/3ds chance on this segment . . . It's 100%.
At repeated intervals over the generations in a line from Edward I to the
present, one would find people as knowledgeable about the recent past as I
am about these generations -- and there would also be plenty of people with
incentive and means to show that one or another connection is invalid.
Taken together with the inapplicability of any 10% across the board figure,
the careful and diligent work of actual genealogists, I think you're a long
way from showing that no medieval ancestry is reliable.
______________________________
*****************************************************
This electronic mail transmission contains confidential
information intended only for the person(s) named.
Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure
by another person is strictly prohibited.
*****************************************************
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
that therefore probably nobody can."
Charles Carpenter
-------------------------
Exactly.
That's the rub on MANY of these quibbles by nay-sayers we see on SGM.
"I can't find a GARD, or even a 17th Century Colonial American Ancestor
[SCCAA] (N. B. Pronounced SIC-A] , so you can't either!"
Massive Fallacy.
Deus Vult.
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
that therefore probably nobody can."
Charles Carpenter
-------------------------
Exactly.
That's the rub on MANY of these quibbles by nay-sayers we see on SGM and
SHM.
Arthur Murata
the dogs out!) Bronwen Edwards
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
Arthur Murata
Princess Anastasia Romanov who was killed with her family
in 1917 (having somehow survived) was proven wrong when her
DNA was compared to that of living relatives in other
countries (I vaguely recall that Prince Philip, Prince
consort of England, was one who donated DNA to compare but
I could be wrong about that). We all, of course, wanted the
sweet old thing to really be Anastasia but, alas, science
proved that she was a sweet old deluded thing.
In regard to the inheritance end of it, in my family there
was in fact a trans-Atlantic search for an heir to an
individual's fortune. And the surprised heir was found
after the British government did an extensive (and
enormously helpful) genealogy of the family and its
offshoots. This was not a royal or noble family; one man
happened to amass a large amount of money but died without
living heirs. The government awarded the inheritance to a
man in Canada whose family had emigrated from Ireland
several generations earlier. Unfortunately for me, he is a
somewhat distant relative although the dead millionaire was
our ancestor in common. Just thought I'd chime in - not
really making any arguments against what you said. Best,
Bronwen Edwards
--- "Albert B. Bach" <postal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You make an interesting point.
>
> From a biological viewpoint, from the genetics aspect of
> it, certainly
> a lot of these "lines" could be out and out wrong.
>
> And perhaps all those with British ancestry, maybe they
> could find,
> genetically, a link to Edward III, or someone of that
> caliber, despite
> not having a "gateway" ancestor who landed with
> Winthrop's Fleet.
>
> Maybe. But for every King and his nobles and VIPs,
> however, there are
> a million merchants, tanners, charcoal makers, and
> farmers. The odds
> that their "lines" outweigh the noble ones are pretty
> good I'd say.
>
> But I think the medieval lineages which we concentrate on
> here,
> crafted in the age that they were, are more about
> inheritance and the
> transmission of the "House" or "Family," and not the
> genetic realities
> so much.
>
> Let’s say our subject is the son of a man with two
> wives.
> Further, the father of one of the wives passes on an
> inheritance. If
> that inheritance passes to this son’s brother, and
> not a single
> provision is made for our subject, and if we are absent
> the birth
> dates, we could reasonably ASSUME that they were
> half-brothers, and
> assign the subject to the mother whose father
> didn’t pass
> don’t
> want their offspring to have those funny chins. The
> Hapsburgs' genes
> are long diluted into obscurity.
>
> Maybe back in 1800 my family left an inheritance in
> Scotland. Maybe I
> could claim it. My claim won't necessarily need to be
> based on
> paternity testing as much as just legally establishing I
> was a
> descendant.
>
> My point is that earlier than modern science, we do have
> to rely on
> other information to establish these connections. And
> it’s the
> joy of discovery with which we pursue them. It’s a
> treat
> establishing a link to the FitzAlans, and it’s fun
> working on
> confirming it, and it’s educational discovering the
Ed Crabtree
attach themselves to royalty, when we Brits have such trouble.
Is one possible explanation that the majority of those who left Britain and
went to America were of the upper crust who HAD connections to the
royalty????? Just a thought.
Ed Crabtree - KCMO
familyh...@kc.rr.com
Arthur Murata
> grtx4 grandmother actually had an unrecorded fling with
> Jack Jones, and A
> was really descended from folk from Snowdonia in Wales.
>
And just what would be wrong with finding out about a Welsh
ancestor or two...? :> Best, Bronwen Edwards
Arthur Murata
--- Renia <ren...@DUMPbtinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> I've been saying something similar to this for some time
> regarding my own
> family, who were armigerous landowners, whose descendants
> and relatives are
> splattered all over the peerage. Still no royal
> ancestors. Not that I'm
> bothered, but I've said it before, it just amazes me how
> many Americans can
> attach themselves to royalty, when we Brits have such
> trouble.
>
> Renia
>
(that is to say, largely voluntary migrants with general
physical features somewhat in common, believed in the Great
Transformation - an invisible line that runs down the
middle of the Atlantic Ocean over which their ships bumped.
When they reached that line, they took off their various
heritages like old sweaters and threw them overboard (not
noticing that the old material stuck to the boat and came
along anyway). These brave souls did their children the
favor of forcing them to only use the English language
which, although foreign to "America", became the language
of choice in the part of America called the United States
and much of Canada, and did not encourage them to remember
the mother language. They continued the transformative
favor by distancing themselves often from their
grandchildren so that their grandchildren, at least, would
be "fully" American - brand new sweaters!
But remember the threads that stuck themselves to the old
timbers of those boats? The grand children and the
great-grandchildren noticed something missing. The sense of
emptiness and rootlessness grew until it became an ethnic
identity all of itself - as represented, perhaps, by old
airstream travel trailers and today by frequent flyer
miles. Some (those with less money and less warm parents)
found solace by identifying themselves with a group of
peers and thus we have street gangs - nothing new but
throughout the history of the colonized countries. Of
course, the disenfranchised (and sometimes the bored
enfranchised and noble) formed street gangs of their own in
Europe as well but at least they knew who they were - they
still had their original sweaters.
Americans seek that which America was supposed to reject -
hereditary unearned entitlements that make them feel
special. The upside is that many of these people undertook
a genuine study of their ancestral heritage and learned
about their context in the world. Unfortunately, many did
not and it is these unfortunate folks who are put into the
SGM meatgrinder when they venture forward with their
inventions. And, of course, the other, much shorter answer,
is that many Americans are legitimately descended from
royalty and many can prove it. The Transformation did not
affect them in the same way - they don't have to prove
anything or make something up in order to "belong". They
have learned that they do not have the entitlements of
their ancestors and consequently enjoy their continuing
education.
All you who are not in the U.S. or Canada - what do you
thinkg of the transatlantic Transformation? Did similar
phenomena happen to analogous travelers? Is something like
that happening now as places like England and France become
more multi-cultural and multi-racial? Good thoughts,
Bronwen
>
> >
> > Perhaps I should claim exclusivity for this lack of
> noble lineage :-))
> >
> > Blair
> >
> > S.B. Southerden from Winchester, Hampshire
> >
> > Researching Kearton; Kirton; Kyrton; de Querton
> > blai...@globalnet.co.uk
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Albert B. Bach" <postal...@hotmail.com>
> > To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: Overall Reliability of Medieval Lineages
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Maybe. But for every King and his nobles and VIPs,
> however, there are
> > > a million merchants, tanners, charcoal makers, and
> farmers. The odds
> > > that their "lines" outweigh the noble ones are pretty
> good I'd say.
> > >
>
Renia
> Renia wrote: it just amazes me how many Americans can
> attach themselves to royalty, when we Brits have such trouble.
>
> Is one possible explanation that the majority of those who left Britain and
> went to America were of the upper crust who HAD connections to the
> royalty????? Just a thought.
Maybe. Maybe not. But more of that class of people stayed in this country than
left it.
Renia
Renia
>
>
> All you who are not in the U.S. or Canada - what do you
> thinkg of the transatlantic Transformation? Did similar
> phenomena happen to analogous travelers? Is something like
> that happening now as places like England and France become
> more multi-cultural and multi-racial? Good thoughts,
> Bronwen
>
England has always been multi-cultural and, to some extent,
multi-racial. I wrote to the group only a couple of weeks ago
on the 18th century research that is going on into identifying
coloured people from parish registers and other sources. The
composition of negroes in this country may have been higher
than imagined. I said on 27th Dec 2001:
A recent article in the Society of Genealogists' journal
reported that "historians estimate
that there were between 10,000 and 20,000 people of African or
Indian origin
in Britain in the 18th century and that they might have made up
to 10%
of London's population". (Hidden from history: black people in
parish
records by Kathy Chater, Genealogists' Magazine, June 2000)
And don't forget the Irish, the Jews, the Flemings, the Angles,
Saxons, Jutes, Normans, Poles, Huguenots and all the other
nationalities who have been weaving in and out of this country
over the centuries. And many of them Anglicised their names
from their foreign versions.
Renia
The...@aol.com
Hello Renia, Bronwen, Ed, et al.,
The questions you have raised, or responded to, concerning questions as
to the 'types' who migrated from the British Isles vs. those who stayed (and
the problems in tracing ancestry for these two 'groups', if such they were)
are not likely to be resolved, or readily answered outside the anecdotal.
Assuming that to be the case, I thought I would dig up more anecdotal
evidence for the mulling. To that end, I reviewed my own ancestry to
determine some specifics in my own case. To-Wit:
17th Century Ancestors Migrating from
Great Britain to the American colonies:
Individuals 52
Family Groups (Husbands/Wives
married prior to migration;
incl. minor children who were
ancestors) 30
Proven Ancestry for above Family
Groups:
Family Groups with proven Ancestry
prior to 1550 4
Family Groups with proven Royal
Ancestry 2
I extrapolate from the above the following raw statistics [NOT directly
applicable to ALL 17th century colonists, individually or as a group] for
your consideration or refutation:
Percentage of family groups of 17th
century colonists with traceable
(pre-1550) ancestry 13.3%
Percentage of above groups with
proven Royal ancestry 6.7%
I submit, the above indicates a noticeable if not overly significant
percentage of colonists with proveable ancestry of high birth/royal origin.
I would also submit that Mark Twain (aka Samuel Clemens) was right [1].
Good luck, and good continued hunting.
John *
* John P. Ravilious
[1] "There are three types of lies: lies; damned lies;
and statistics."
Leslie Mahler
> I've been saying something similar to this for some time regarding my own
> family, who were armigerous landowners, whose descendants and relatives are
> splattered all over the peerage. Still no royal ancestors. Not that I'm
> bothered, but I've said it before, it just amazes me how many Americans can
> attach themselves to royalty, when we Brits have such trouble.
>
> Renia
The answer on this is quite simple.
Well documented studies of colonial Americans and their descendants have
been published since the late 1800s.
There are volumes which trace 5 generations of descendants for Mayflower
passengers, with documentation for all generations.
Also worthy of mention are works such as Savage's Genealogical Dictionary of
New England, and many other helpful local resources - an example is, the Great
Migration Begins - which a study of ALL New England colonists from 1620 to
1633.
Now, as far as I know, no one has but together similar works for England.
For example, someone could make a "Genealogical Dictionary of Rutland", a
compilation on families from 1600 to 1650.
Leslie
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Tim Powys-Lybbe
"Leslie Mahler" <lma...@att.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Well documented studies of colonial Americans and their descendants have
> been published since the late 1800s.
<snip>
> Now, as far as I know, no one has put together similar works for
> England. For example, someone could make a "Genealogical Dictionary of
> Rutland", a compilation on families from 1600 to 1650.
Fashions and potential customers have changed.
In the 19th and early 20th century there were multitudes of English
(etc) compilations such as Burke's Landed Gentry and Ruvigny's
Plantagenet Rolls. Every family had their pedigree and supplied same to
the publishers; the families were presumed competent and trustworthy and
no-one dared question their offerings. Now most of those "landed"
families have vanished and the market for such books has mostly gone.
The genealogical market in England is now much more a mass market for
people who wish to trace their ancestry through public records. Just
have a look at Genuki (www.genuki.org.uk).
Mind you, there is, still, CP.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
Paul C. Reed
> "Renia" <ren...@DUMPbtinternet.com> wrote in message
>
> > I've been saying something similar to this for some time regarding my own
> > family, who were armigerous landowners, whose descendants and relatives are
> > splattered all over the peerage. Still no royal ancestors. Not that I'm
> > bothered, but I've said it before, it just amazes me how many Americans can
> > attach themselves to royalty, when we Brits have such trouble.
> >
> > Renia
To repeat something I posted long ago, if you are a Brit, the difficulty is
crossing the period of the eighteenth century. That is when so many
moved around (Inductrial Revolution), yet few records exist to give a
clue to the parish of birth before 1851, unless one was wealthy or an
officer in the military.
Even dirt poor Americans can frequently trace some lines back to
the Colonial period (before 1776), and if you have New England
ancestry, much is already traced.
So many Americans with Colonial ancestry jump into England
around 1600 to 1650, and if you are talking a family of gentry,
well....
And dicoveries are still being made (and claims being disproved).
I have English ancestry in Shropshire, Herefordshire, Wales,
Devon, Cornwall, Lancashire, Westmoreland, and Yorkshire after
1750 (1/4 of my ancestry on both sides) and 1/4 Colonial New
England. None of my later English lines trace back to gentry yet.
Quite a few of my New England lines have much better prospects.
I even have a late New England immigrant (from Kington,
Herefordshire about 1750) who founded the Episcopal church
in western Connecticut (John Davies) who married Catherine
Spencer, and it turns out she was a junior branch of the Spencers
of Althorp who somehow lost most of their inheritance and married
a prominent yeoman, sailing to America where they were able to
purchase over 1,000 acres near Litchfield, CT (Davies Hollow).
Cheers!
Paul
Janet Ariciu
England to make name, so to speak, for them selves. Janet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Crabtree" <familyh...@kc.rr.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: Overall Reliability of Medieval Lineages
> Renia wrote: it just amazes me how many Americans can
> attach themselves to royalty, when we Brits have such trouble.
>
> Is one possible explanation that the majority of those who left Britain
and
> went to America were of the upper crust who HAD connections to the
> royalty????? Just a thought.
>
Renia
interested in merchant trading above going into the church as a means of
supporting themselves. If the family could not afford to support all its sons,
then some of them may well have felt obliged to earn an income by other means.
For those that could afford it, mercantile endeavours may well have been seen as
a means of raising the family (or individual) income.
The case was probably different for those who left for religious beliefs. Money
was not the motive there, but religious freedom was. That may have crossed the
class divide, where sponsorship by a sympathetic gentry or aristocratic
benefactor may have been the means to leave Britain.
Renia
Renia
> "Renia" <ren...@DUMPbtinternet.com> wrote in message
>
> > I've been saying something similar to this for some time regarding my own
> > family, who were armigerous landowners, whose descendants and relatives are
> > splattered all over the peerage. Still no royal ancestors. Not that I'm
> > bothered, but I've said it before, it just amazes me how many Americans can
> > attach themselves to royalty, when we Brits have such trouble.
> >
> > Renia
>
> The answer on this is quite simple.
>
> Well documented studies of colonial Americans and their descendants have
> been published since the late 1800s.
How many of them are still considered reliable?
>
> There are volumes which trace 5 generations of descendants for Mayflower
> passengers, with documentation for all generations.
One ship. Not everyone in America is a Mayflower descendant, surely?
>
> Also worthy of mention are works such as Savage's Genealogical Dictionary of
> New England, and many other helpful local resources - an example is, the Great
> Migration Begins - which a study of ALL New England colonists from 1620 to
> 1633.
>
> Now, as far as I know, no one has but together similar works for England.
> For example, someone could make a "Genealogical Dictionary of Rutland", a
> compilation on families from 1600 to 1650.
Well, Burke's Peerage and Burke's Landed Gentry come to mind, but they were
confined to the artistocracy and gentry landowners and have problems of their own.
In the 20th century, more and more genealogies are being published in family
history journals, but there is no co-ordinated effort to publish them all in one
source. The internet will probably make up for this as more people publish on
Rootsweb, or wherever, but there are always the careless who miss a few
generations. (I've come across sons who were 100 years older than parents and
other ridiculous scenarios.)
Renia
Renia
Without access to any other lies . . . sorry, statistics! . . your percentages
seem about right. The impression one gets is that all or most American families
can trace back to royal ancestors, which certainly what I would dispute. But
your statistics indicate that you really have to meander through as many lines
as possible to get there.
Renia
Renia
> > "Renia" <ren...@DUMPbtinternet.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > I've been saying something similar to this for some time regarding my own
> > > family, who were armigerous landowners, whose descendants and relatives are
> > > splattered all over the peerage. Still no royal ancestors. Not that I'm
> > > bothered, but I've said it before, it just amazes me how many Americans can
> > > attach themselves to royalty, when we Brits have such trouble.
> > >
> > > Renia
>
> To repeat something I posted long ago, if you are a Brit, the difficulty is
> crossing the period of the eighteenth century. That is when so many
> moved around (Inductrial Revolution), yet few records exist to give a
> clue to the parish of birth before 1851, unless one was wealthy or an
> officer in the military.
There's some truth in this, particularly with migrations into cities. For the
slightly earlier period, settlement certificates can be useful. This is where the
IGI is actually very useful for studying the spread of a name and the likely,
probably of possible area of origin. This is particularly so if the name is not
unbearably common, and if some of the more unusual Christian names seem to carry
through from one parish to another. These are clues, though, not verification of
ancestry. (If the IGI was confined to parish register and bishop's transcript
entries, it would be so much more useful. The real problems with it are those
singleton entries of undefinable names who are relatives of the person who entered
it, or who have a vague idea of the parentage and place of an individual, often
based on AF, but nothing more.)
> Even dirt poor Americans can frequently trace some lines back to
> the Colonial period (before 1776), and if you have New England
> ancestry, much is already traced.
>
> So many Americans with Colonial ancestry jump into England
> around 1600 to 1650, and if you are talking a family of gentry,
> well....
IF you are talking gentry, and then of course, proving it. Not everyone called
Willis was gentry, for example.
>
> And dicoveries are still being made (and claims being disproved).
Problematical, with the internet doubtless perpetuating some of the bogus ones,
non?
There should be a newsgroup for such gateway ancestors! (There isn't one, is
there?)
>
> I have English ancestry in Shropshire, Herefordshire, Wales,
> Devon, Cornwall, Lancashire, Westmoreland, and Yorkshire after
> 1750 (1/4 of my ancestry on both sides) and 1/4 Colonial New
> England. None of my later English lines trace back to gentry yet.
> Quite a few of my New England lines have much better prospects.
> I even have a late New England immigrant (from Kington,
> Herefordshire about 1750) who founded the Episcopal church
> in western Connecticut (John Davies) who married Catherine
> Spencer, and it turns out she was a junior branch of the Spencers
> of Althorp who somehow lost most of their inheritance and married
> a prominent yeoman, sailing to America where they were able to
> purchase over 1,000 acres near Litchfield, CT (Davies Hollow).
That doesn't make you related to you-know-who, does it?
Renia
>
> Cheers!
>
> Paul
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
generations prior to me in 500 years) and I have a hypothesis about the
origins of the family in the mid 13th century. Despite learning quite a
lot (and I know there is more to find) about the early ones, there are
no connections to royalty, and only the odd baron and some knights."
Blair Southerden
"I've been saying something similar to this for some time regarding my
own family, who were armigerous landowners, whose descendants and
relatives are splattered all over the peerage. Still no royal
ancestors. Not that I'm bothered, [1] but I've said it before, it just
amazes me how many Americans can attach themselves to royalty, when we
Brits have such trouble."
Renia Simmonds
----------------------------
[1] Yeah, Sure.
I don't think you're doing it right. You seem to be bollixing the
process.
Tell us who the noble ancestors are, including the "odd baron" and those
"splattered all over the peerage" *with the spouses*. Show us your
trees with the nobles perched in it and we'll find the Royal Ancestors
for you.
And, if you are unwilling to do that ---- pipe down and quit the
incessant grousing.
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
Renia
-----------------
That is a VERY foolish "impression".
No one here who knows what he or she is talking about has said anything
of the sort.
Just because many here on SGM can trace their ancestry back to Royalty
does not by any means indicate that "all or most American families can
trace back to royal ancestors." Why would any intelligent, observant
person ever think something so absurd?
Secondly, where on earth do people come up with these dumb as dishwater
"impressions" ---- that are then paraded as straw men?
David R. Teague
<snip>
Wouldn't it be closer to the truth to say that American families with
known ancestors in the Colonial period have a much better chance of
tracing back to royal ancestors, especially if those ancestors went to
Virginia and New England? The passage of time (200-almost 400 years), as
well as the American habit for a certain degree of egalitarianism would
explain most verifiable / probable / plausible claims of royal ancestry
in the current American population. And, since "the Mayflower crowd" and
"the Ellis Island crowd" have been intermarying for a century or more in
some cases -- well, you do the math.
David Teague
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Janet Ariciu
Money
was not the motive there, but religious freedom was. That may have crossed
the
class divide, where sponsorship by a sympathetic gentry or aristocratic
benefactor may have been the means to leave Britain.
Religious beliefs is one reason to come to America.
Did you know that one winter it was cold in Europe that birds fell from the
Sky?
There is researcher who found a minister book from Germany. That is what the
minister wrote in his book
Boy! That is cold.
One more thing what about Kings give Lords land in America for service?
That is another way.
If the family could not afford to support all its sons,
then some of them may well have felt obliged to earn an income by other
means
This is true too. That is why they when other countries to make their
fortune.
Janet
> > > Renia wrote: it just amazes me how many Americans can
> > > attach themselves to royalty, when we Brits have such trouble.
> > >
Roz Griston
times to produce it..nada..zip..zero..
come on stumble bum, grumble scum..show us your goods or to quote you..
"Show us your
trees with the nobles perched in it and we'll find the Royal Ancestors
for you.
And, if you are unwilling to do that ---- pipe down and quit the
incessant grousing."
prove it baka..or take your own advice.
roz
From: D. Spencer Hines [SMTP:D._Spencer...@aya.yale.edu]
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 5:45 AM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Overall Reliability Of Medieval Lineages
"I can trace my family back to c1500 and my 8 x great grandfather (so
10
generations prior to me in 500 years) and I have a hypothesis about the
origins of the family in the mid 13th century. Despite learning quite
a
lot (and I know there is more to find) about the early ones, there are
no connections to royalty, and only the odd baron and some knights."
Blair Southerden
snip
----------------------------
[1] Yeah, Sure.
I don't think you're doing it right. You seem to be bollixing the
process.
Tell us who the noble ancestors are, including the "odd baron" and
those
"splattered all over the peerage" *with the spouses*. Show us your
trees with the nobles perched in it and we'll find the Royal Ancestors
for you.
And, if you are unwilling to do that ---- pipe down and quit the
incessant grousing.
Deus Vult.
snip the boringly long sig file..yet again.
D. Spencer Hines
Cristopher Nash
I'd like to second this; the difference is striking, and for the
reasons Paul gives. Just to make clear that his experience is the
norm: Of my own mother's American parents' 64 gggg-grandparents
(whose births fall very roughly around 1700), I know 54 or more --
and a leading reason (as Paul's explained) is that the ancestors of
all but say 5 of these had arrived in the US before 1678. (I can add
that as stats -- plus certain idiosyncratic socio-econ events --
would have it, then, at least 5 of these lines descend directly from
'medieval gateway' ancestors, so that the number of my apparent
Plantagenet descents is more than I'd like to take the time, or set
my gen-app, to count.) _Contrast_ with this that the antecedents of
my only known ancestor on my mother's side to have arrived in America
in the _19th_ century -- one of her father's own grandmothers, born
in England in 1816, i.e. more than 100 years _more_recently_ -- still
remain a total mystery to me. This in spite of the fact that her
surname (Duell) is reasonably unusual, and clusters at the time in
just the region (Hants/Wilts) where explicit family lore says she was
born. One reason is anecdotal - her parents were undoubtedly Baptist
and her case will have been affected by historical and doctrinal
peculiarities associated with this; but it falls within the general
range of causes Paul's mentioned.
I'm not sure this makes things any nicer for my gen-keen mates here
in England, but at least there's the (redeeming?) fact that the
culture unfolding here since the period Paul mentions has been far
more laid back (if not downright indifferent) about 'roots' than the
corresponding one in America -- and I'm not dead certain that the
British archival blindspots we're talking about are totally unrelated
to this. (Another reason to add to Paul's list, maybe?)
Cris
--
Renia
> "I can trace my family back to c1500 and my 8 x great grandfather (so 10
> generations prior to me in 500 years) and I have a hypothesis about the
> origins of the family in the mid 13th century. Despite learning quite a
> lot (and I know there is more to find) about the early ones, there are
> no connections to royalty, and only the odd baron and some knights."
>
> Blair Southerden
>
> "I've been saying something similar to this for some time regarding my
> own family, who were armigerous landowners, whose descendants and
> relatives are splattered all over the peerage. Still no royal
> ancestors. Not that I'm bothered, [1] but I've said it before, it just
> amazes me how many Americans can attach themselves to royalty, when we
> Brits have such trouble."
>
> Renia Simmonds
> ----------------------------
>
> [1] Yeah, Sure.
>
> I don't think you're doing it right. You seem to be bollixing the
> process.
Yes, you already said that to me privately. As I said to you, and to which
you have not responded, I have been doing genealogy for almost 25 years,
some of that time for commissions. But, as I also said, I tend to
concentrate on the subject surname of my one-name study, and don't spend
very much time on other lines, other than what I pick up from Burke's, CP
and the internet. As I said to you, there were only 1,100 or so people of
that rare name in England in the 1881 census and my theory is that they all
have one common root. Yet, at the turn of te 16th/17th centuries, I can
identify at least two-dozen separate lines, with only hints and clues as to
where they might have separated. I also said that in some of the parish
registers of this period, there might be two different chaps of the same
name (evident only from other sources, such as the Court Roll, wills, etc)
where someone without those sources might assume that they were the same
person, or that two chaps might be assumed to be father and son, when the
relationship between them was more distant.
If this can happen with a rare name, then it makes me wonder how often it
happens with not-so-rare names, particularly when an entire country is being
scoured for information, not just one or a few neighbouring parishes.
>
> Tell us who the noble ancestors are, including the "odd baron" and those
> "splattered all over the peerage" *with the spouses*. Show us your
> trees with the nobles perched in it and we'll find the Royal Ancestors
> for you.
You show me yours, and I'll show you mine.
> And, if you are unwilling to do that ---- pipe down and quit the
> incessant grousing.
I wasn't grousing but responding to someone else who has the same idea as I
do.
>
> Deus Vult.
Deo volente.
Renia
Renia
> "The impression one gets is that all or most American families can trace
> back to royal ancestors..."
>
> Renia
> -----------------
>
> That is a VERY foolish "impression".
>
> No one here who knows what he or she is talking about has said anything
> of the sort.
It's the impression you constantly give, for one.
>
> Just because many here on SGM can trace their ancestry back to Royalty
> does not by any means indicate that "all or most American families can
> trace back to royal ancestors." Why would any intelligent, observant
> person ever think something so absurd?
Mind you, it strikes me, that the people here, on this newsgroup, are here
precisely because they have medieval and/or royal or aristocratic ancestors.
There are doubtless far more people in America (and England) who are not on
this newsgroup, for the precise reason that they haven't got that far back.
So, tell us all about your royal ancestors. Well, we know about your
ancestors, but how do you make the link?
> Secondly, where on earth do people come up with these dumb as dishwater
> "impressions" ---- that are then paraded as straw men?
The phrase is dull as dishwater.
>
> Deus Vult.
Deo Volente.
Renia
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
coinage ---- and it better fits the facts and testimonies from Brits
that I have in hand about Princess Anne.
2. I have received no email response from you. Perhaps you dropped it
or forgot to send it.
3. It's VERY foolish of you to only concentrate on a one-name study and
then WHINE about not being able to link up to Royal Ancestors.
TERMINALLY foolish. You have been WHINING about this for several years.
4. I don't care how long you have been doing Mediaeval Genealogy. If
you have a pedigree wherein "my own family, who were armigerous
landowners, whose descendants and relatives are splattered all over the
peerage" ---- as you YOURSELF say ---- then you are either GROSSLY
incompetent or INCREDIBLY lazy, or both, if you cannot find a linkage to
Royalty.
5. Read, Mark, Learn And Inwardly Digest.
6. How Sweet It Is!
7. Deus Vult.
John 5:14
"Much have I travelled in the realms of gold, And many goodly states and
kingdoms seen; Round many western islands have I been, Which bards in
fealty to Apollo hold." -- John Keats [1795-1821] -- Poems [1817] -- "On
First Looking Into Chapman's Homer"
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Renia" <ren...@DUMPbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3C4088AF...@DUMPbtinternet.com...
Ed Crabtree
America. But, and I'm no expert, it would not take very many to create a
large number of descendants. We Americans do love large families. :)
I have possible noble and/or royal connections only through two immigrant
ancestors. One being the Throckmorton family which back prior 1600 connects
in England with many noble and royal families.
The other family is my Hinshaw/Henshall connection.
As someone on this list once said. Once you connect with one Royal
personage that opens the gate for many connections. It's nice to be able
to say I am descended from King So and So, but so are alot of other people.
They are easier to discover since so much is already done. I do so enjoy
the hunt for the commoner with the ordinary and odd occupations.
Renia
> 1. Yes, I much prefer the expression "dumb as dishwater" ---- it's my
> coinage ---- and it better fits the facts and testimonies from Brits
> that I have in hand about Princess Anne.
>
> 2. I have received no email response from you. Perhaps you dropped it
> or forgot to send it.
No, I sent it. Must have disappeared into cyberspace, or else your reply
thing doesn't work. Never mind.
> 3. It's VERY foolish of you to only concentrate on a one-name study and
> then WHINE about not being able to link up to Royal Ancestors.
> TERMINALLY foolish. You have been WHINING about this for several years.
I wasn't whining. I was commenting. I keep saying, it doesn't bother me.
> 4. I don't care how long you have been doing Mediaeval Genealogy.
I've been doing genealogy (not specifically medieval genealogy) for almost
25 years. I can't remember when I got my lot further back than Burke's
(which was in error) by a couple of hundred years.
> If
> you have a pedigree wherein "my own family, who were armigerous
> landowners, whose descendants and relatives are splattered all over the
> peerage" ---- as you YOURSELF say ---- then you are either GROSSLY
> incompetent or INCREDIBLY lazy, or both, if you cannot find a linkage to
> Royalty.
I'm not particularly looking for linkage to royalty, so it's not laziness. I
have genealogical specialities other than looking for royal blood. And I'm
certainly not incompetent, or I wouldn't have found half of what I have
found, for myself, and clients.
> 5. Read, Mark, Learn And Inwardly Digest.
>
> 6. How Sweet It Is!
>
> 7. Deus Vult.
Deo Volente
Renia
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
laziness."
Renia
----------------
Yet she keeps kvetching about all the Americans who seem to have these
linkages [her "impression"] but how difficult it is for Brits to find
them. She's been doing this for several years.
Farblondjet, Farchadat and Fartoost.
If you aren't looking for something you are rather unlikely to find it.
Deus Vult.
P.S.
| > 2. I have received no email response from you. Perhaps you dropped
| > it or forgot to send it. [DSH]
|
| No, I sent it. Must have disappeared into cyberspace, or else your
| reply thing doesn't work. Never mind. [Renia]
Sounds like "The Church Lady".
My "reply thing" works just fine.
Exitus Acta Probat
Arthur Murata
"America" were equally happy to distance themselves from
their foreign-born parents and grandparents - not
necessarily at home (although that was common, too) but
most especially in public. My students who are in that
situation speak of what they call the 5-step rule - when
you are in public with your foreign-born relatives, remain
either 5 steps ahead or 5 steps behind so that you will not
be associated with them. THEIR children, then, are dying
for wont of "roots" that were carefully (or carelessly) cut
for their own good (as far as intentions go) but in fact
gave them a pathological aimlessness and alienation from
any sense of community or, even, family. Bronwen
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
seeking to establish medieval connections.
I note:
[1606 +: America and advertising begin to
grow together. One of the first products
heavily marketed is America itself.
Richard Hofstadter called the Virginia
Company's recruitment effort for its new
colony, "one of the first concerted and
sustained advertising campaigns in the
history of the modern world." The out-
of-place, out-of-work "gentlemen" in an
overpopulated England were sold quite
a bill of goods about the bountiful land
and riches to be had in the New World.
Daniel J. Boorstin has mused whether
"there was a kind of natural selection
here of those people who were willing
to believe in advertising."]
http://www.tobacco.org/History/Jamestown.html#aaa2
[The troubles were exacerbated by the
colonists themselves. Many of them we
could call gentlemen-adventurers, "whose
breeding," a contemporary said, "never
knew what a day's labour meant." These
were men, often lesser scions of nobility,
with no future in overpopulated England,
who were lured by the Virginia Company
with promises of land and wealth--much
as people were lured to California during
the Gold Rush. But there was no gold in
Virginia, and these "prospectors" didn't
know how to farm, didn't know how to
hunt, and--possibly feeling betrayed by
the Virginia Company's promises, and
lacking any land of their own--were not
known for their spirit of cooperation
either among themselves, nor with the
local Indians of the Powhatan confederacy.]
http://www.tobacco.org/History/Jamestown.html
If the Virginia Company's advertising campaign
"paper trail" were known or reconstructed,
it would locality link to the pool of gentry being
solicited; thus, to potential origins for subsequent
links of descending American families who
survived the trip and had posterity.
This effect of advertising by the nobility was
done in other localities, such as "Probably
Zinzendorf, whose attention had
been caught by the attractive
advertisements of the Trustees,
[of Georgia State] had unofficially
suggested the idea to them." . . .
[A nobleman, of the Protestant
religion, connected with the most
influential families of Germany,
has decided to live for a time in
America, without, however,
renouncing his estates in Germany.
But as circumstances render it
inadvisable for him to take such
a step hastily, he wishes to send
in advance a number of families
of his dependents, composed of
honest, sturdy, industrious, skillful,
economical people, well ordered in
their domestic affairs, who, having
no debts, will try to sell such
possessions as they cannot take
with them in order to raise the funds
for establishing themselves in their
new home.]
http://www.universitylake.org/history/zinzendorf.html
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/
<http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/%7Evctinney/>
"Free Coverage of the Genealogy World in a Nutshell"
Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] -
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
----------------------------------------------------------
Ed Crabtree wrote:
>Renia wrote: it just amazes me how many Americans can
>attach themselves to royalty, when we Brits have such trouble.
>
>Is one possible explanation that the majority of those who left Britain and
>went to America were of the upper crust who HAD connections to the
>royalty????? Just a thought.
>
Arthur Murata
grade school but it is largely a fairy tale since it
applied to only a miniscule percentage of immigrants.
Certainly, Granted, there are notable exceptions -
Anabaptists, Mormons, Puritans, etc. but they account for
only a few of millions who came to America. Best, Bronwen
JKent...@aol.com
Welch. She also says it means Hair Black As A Ravin. What a great name to
have to help you trace your family. Unfortunately for her, she says her
mother picked the name out of the local newspaper.
Jno
Arthur Murata
--- "Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr." <vcti...@dcn.davis.ca.us>
wrote:
> You bring up an important point for those
> seeking to establish medieval connections.
> I note:
> [1606 +: America and advertising begin to
> grow together. One of the first products
> heavily marketed is America itself.
I understand that Erik the Red did quite a number on his
former countrymen in advertising Greenland as, well,
green... - best, Bronwen
Arthur Murata
typical - judging from the people I talk to, etc. For the
moment I willlay aside the largest part of my ancestry
which has been on North American soil for, perhaps, 50,000
years or more - and just consider those that came from
Europe. I was handed a slip of paper once with some names
scribbled on them, husbands, wives and the year of their
marriage, going back about four generations. There was no
reason to think that any of them would lead to royalty or
nobility of any kind. But that slip of paper is what got me
started in genealogy - wanting to connect with these people
who died long before I was born (not too long before in one
case).
They turned out to go back to a Caroline Butler whose
father was known as "Big Toby" Butler in Ireland and before
long I found that he was part of the Dunboyne line, leading
to the Ormond line, leading to Edward I, etc. I
corresponded with the current Lord Dunboyne (after
considerable searching for the right person to contact) and
he filled in wives' names, etc. for me - and was very kind,
jolly in fact. Not at all my stereotype of an English Lord.
But my mother did not even know her grandfather's first
name and was filled with misinformation about dates,
reasons for death, etc. and she believed that her paternal
grandmother was German because the surname was Fischer
instead of Fisher. Many years later, discovered relatives
still in England who had information about that side of the
family - the "Fischer" turned out to be mostly Scottish,
leading to the Glenorchy Campbells, to the Flemings,
Stewarts, and eventually James IV, which opened up a whole
new area of exploration - not because it was royal or
noble, but because it was information. More ancestors to
connect to. No reason to hold royalty against them. I found
out the name of my mother's grandfather but still can't go
back any farther than that on his side. By the way if
William Locock Webb, in London during the late 19th
Century, rings any bells for anyone - it's not medieval,
but give me a post privately!
So in the case of this one American with royal ancestors, I
was not looking for them at all. It was a surprise to find
them and the main thing that finding them did for me was
allow me to learn a great deal about my ancestry without
having to break a sweat - already done by folks like those
on this group. As many have said, it is finding our
commoner ancestors that presents a problem - especially if
they might have been illiterate (a solid possibility). I
know I have some who were run out of Virginia and then out
of North Carolina during the 18th and 19th centuries
because they were loyal to England. One of them even had a
sister who married the brother of Daniel Boone. But I have
been unable to go beyond this point with them and while
their ethnicity is certainly Scottish (Graham, Galbreath,
Colvin...) I have yet to connect them to anything other
than a place, Greenock (where is it?) and Argyll.
American royalty relates to George Washington - not in
their genes, but in their jeans (on the face of our dollar
bills)! - Bronwen
> > [1] "There are three types of lies: lies; damned lies;
> > and statistics."
>
> Without access to any other lies . . . sorry, statistics!
> . . your percentages
> seem about right. The impression one gets is that all or
> most American families
> can trace back to royal ancestors, which certainly what I
> would dispute. But
> your statistics indicate that you really have to meander
> through as many lines
> as possible to get there.
>
> Renia
>
>
Arthur Murata
Welsh but I have heard an entirely different translation
which is: fair breast or, as my husband says, "pink
titties". Sorry, group. My mother did not get the name from
a newspaper but she also did not come by the name
"honestly" (i.e., I am not named for anyone in the family)
- she had just finished reading How Green Was My Valley
when she decided that she liked the name of the character
Bronwen. Just as good as a newspaper, don't you think? She
didn't know what it meant until I told her; then she got
embarrassed. For one thing, they ain't white...best,
Bronwen
Robert O'Connor
> my only known ancestor on my mother's side to have arrived in America
> in the _19th_ century -- one of her father's own grandmothers, born
> in England in 1816, i.e. more than 100 years _more_recently_ -- still
> remain a total mystery to me. This in spite of the fact that her
> surname (Duell) is reasonably unusual, and clusters at the time in
> just the region (Hants/Wilts) where explicit family lore says she was
> born
Pity the poor New Zealander of European origin who must first trace the
country of origin of his immigrant ancestors - who generally would have
arrived in the country between 1850 and 1900. Being a country of nineteenth
century colonial origins those immigrant ancestors could have come from
anywhere in Europe, in my case they came from Ireland, England, Germany &
Sweden. Then one must locate the specific parish, village or town from
whence they came or were born, and begin the search all over again in each
of those various countries!! Not only does one encounter the problem of
population movement due to the industrial revolution, as in British context,
but one also is asked to master several new languages!!
It seems to me, from what Paul and Cris have said, that Americans fortunate
enough to have substantial New England ancestry have a great advantage over
those of us on this group with more recent colonial ancestors.
Renia is correct to say that it seems harder for those of us with more
recent British ancestry to connect to gentry or royalty. I have three such
'gateway' lines, but they have been established only after nearly 20 long,
but rewarding, years of research and many trips to overseas repositories and
libraries.
Robert O'Connor
Renia
Arthur Murata wrote:
> I am one American story but I do not think that it is
> typical - judging from the people I talk to, etc. For the
> moment I willlay aside the largest part of my ancestry
> which has been on North American soil for, perhaps, 50,000
> years or more - and just consider those that came from
> Europe. I was handed a slip of paper once with some names
> scribbled on them, husbands, wives and the year of their
> marriage, going back about four generations. There was no
> reason to think that any of them would lead to royalty or
> nobility of any kind. But that slip of paper is what got me
> started in genealogy - wanting to connect with these people
> who died long before I was born (not too long before in one
> case).
>
> They turned out to go back to a Caroline Butler whose
> father was known as "Big Toby" Butler in Ireland and before
> long I found that he was part of the Dunboyne line, leading
> to the Ormond line, leading to Edward I, etc. I
> corresponded with the current Lord Dunboyne (after
> considerable searching for the right person to contact) and
> he filled in wives' names, etc. for me - and was very kind,
> jolly in fact. Not at all my stereotype of an English Lord.
That's because he's an Irish lord!
> But my mother did not even know her grandfather's first
> name and was filled with misinformation about dates,
> reasons for death, etc. and she believed that her paternal
> grandmother was German because the surname was Fischer
> instead of Fisher.
I was given mis-information by my own father-in-law, who got
the name of his grandfather wrong. I found George Simmonds in
the right place and time, with the right age at death, but in a
different cemetary to what FIL had said. There are 2
neighbouring ones. I subsequently went charging up 3 or 4
generations of a family tree, only for FIL's sister to come up
with quite different information. FIL had confused his father's
and grandfather's names yet FIL was 12 when his grandfather
died.
> Many years later, discovered relatives
> still in England who had information about that side of the
> family - the "Fischer" turned out to be mostly Scottish,
> leading to the Glenorchy Campbells, to the Flemings,
> Stewarts, and eventually James IV, which opened up a whole
> new area of exploration - not because it was royal or
> noble, but because it was information. More ancestors to
> connect to. No reason to hold royalty against them. I found
> out the name of my mother's grandfather but still can't go
> back any farther than that on his side. By the way if
> William Locock Webb, in London during the late 19th
> Century, rings any bells for anyone - it's not medieval,
> but give me a post privately!
This isn't him, is it?
1881 census
Dwelling: 170 Grundy St
Census Place: Bromley, London, Middlesex, England
Source: FHL Film 1341112 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 0502
Folio 113 Page 6
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
William L. WEBB W 55 M Whitechapel, Middlesex, England
Rel: Head
Occ: Engineer Fitter (E&M)
There were almost 29,000 William Webbs in England, Scotland and
Wales in 1881 and 454 of them lived in London. The above is the
only one with the initial L. But, not everybody's middle name
or initial was indicated on the census, so he could be hiding
somewhere else!
> So in the case of this one American with royal ancestors, I
> was not looking for them at all. It was a surprise to find
> them and the main thing that finding them did for me was
> allow me to learn a great deal about my ancestry without
> having to break a sweat - already done by folks like those
> on this group. As many have said, it is finding our
> commoner ancestors that presents a problem - especially if
> they might have been illiterate (a solid possibility). I
> know I have some who were run out of Virginia and then out
> of North Carolina during the 18th and 19th centuries
> because they were loyal to England. One of them even had a
> sister who married the brother of Daniel Boone. But I have
> been unable to go beyond this point with them and while
> their ethnicity is certainly Scottish (Graham, Galbreath,
> Colvin...) I have yet to connect them to anything other
> than a place, Greenock (where is it?) and Argyll.
Greenock is in Argyll, on the Firth of Clyde. You get a ferry
from Greenock to Dunoon on the Holy Loch where the nuclear
submarine base was for so many years. My old haunt. We moved
out because the sub was moving in. Noisy thing.
> American royalty relates to George Washington - not in
> their genes, but in their jeans (on the face of our dollar
> bills)! - Bronwen
Well I can claim a tenuous connection to George Washington, in
that his great-grandfather's sister, Anne Washington, married
Francis Wright, who shares my Wright ancestry.
Renia
Renia
> "I'm not particularly looking for linkage to royalty, so it's not
> laziness."
>
> Renia
> ----------------
>
> Yet she keeps kvetching about all the Americans who seem to have these
> linkages [her "impression"] but how difficult it is for Brits to find
> them. She's been doing this for several years.
Genealogy, yes, but not hunting for royal ancestors.
>
> Farblondjet, Farchadat and Fartoost.
I wish I knew what all this meant, but I expect it's insulting, so I'd
rather not.
>
> If you aren't looking for something you are rather unlikely to find it.
That, I have to say, is very true.
>
> Deus Vult.
Deo Volente.
>
> P.S.
>
> | > 2. I have received no email response from you. Perhaps you dropped
> | > it or forgot to send it. [DSH]
> |
> | No, I sent it. Must have disappeared into cyberspace, or else your
> | reply thing doesn't work. Never mind. [Renia]
>
> Sounds like "The Church Lady".
What's that? No, don't tell me. It's probably another insult.
>
> My "reply thing" works just fine.
Hmm. Then maybe it's btinternet. It hasn't bounced back. I wonder if other
people aren't receiving my emails.
> Exitus Acta Probat
Exit the acrobat.
Renia
Arthur Murata
>
> Pity the poor New Zealander of European origin who must
> first trace the
> country of origin of his immigrant ancestors - who
> generally would have
> arrived in the country between 1850 and 1900. Being a
> country of nineteenth
> century colonial origins those immigrant ancestors could
> have come from
> anywhere in Europe, in my case they came from Ireland,
> England, Germany &
> Sweden. Then one must locate the specific parish,
> village or town from
That, of course, is how it is for most Americans, too (I am
sure that Mr. Doria from Brazil could fill you in on some
of the non-English-speaking countries which are also
"America"). However, most Americans couldn't care less
about their ancestry; many of my European-derived students
cannot tell me the language of their own surname (so far
this year, I have heard such confusion from a Cooper and a
Schwartz - both very clear with an iota of knowledge about
the world -says something about their families and their
educations to date!) Of course, if you were Maori you could
probably recite your ancestors right back to the specific
boat they came in...or so I have heard.
I have the same problem as you for tracking down those
ancestors who were not royal, noble or rich. You may even
have something of an edge by still being part of Britain in
a technical sense (I don't really know the correct
political terminology here so excluse my stumble). Only a
small percentage of Americans who are doing genealogical
work can trace their family to a specific ancestor in New
England - most came through Ellis Island on the East Coast
or Angel Island on the West Coast; some (like my English
grandfather) wandered across the Canadian border and
"forgot" to go back; other Americans wandered or swam
across the other border. This is all why they have special
organizations like "Daughters of the American Revolution"
filled with snobs who like to feel special. I have had good
luck with a few lines in my family, but most of them reach
a dead end at about the point of immigration (except for
those that are not immigrants - I am more than half
"Indian"). Did immigrants to New Zealand feel a need to cut
their ties with their homeland? Did they feel that they
were transformed from Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh
families into New Zealanders? If you ask my mother about
her ancestry, she'll say "I am just an American" and yet
she is the one with the royal and noble lines I uncovered.
She does not want me to even tell her about them (she's
about to celebrate her 90th birthday) - although her
sister, who lives 3000 miles from me, wrote me a plaintive
letter asking for information on her grandmother - which I
was able to supply. It seems that only the boys received
genealogical information; the two sisters received none but
their brother, it turns out, had a large chart about their
part of the family that duplicated much of my work. It was
found after he died and his son, who lives about 100 miles
from me, found it while going through his belongings. If we
compile all of these stories in an organized way, we would
have a tremendous anthology on the comparative experiences
of colonial great,great grandchildren in different
countries who are tackling their family histories. Anyone
up for it? I have experience publishing and editing. Best,
Bronwen (I guess we've gotten way off topic at this point
unless you consider that the beginning of most of those
stories takes place at the tail-end of the medieval
period?)
> whence they came or were born, and begin the search all
> over again in each
> of those various countries!! Not only does one encounter
> the problem of
> population movement due to the industrial revolution, as
> in British context,
> but one also is asked to master several new languages!!
>
> It seems to me, from what Paul and Cris have said, that
> Americans fortunate
> enough to have substantial New England ancestry have a
> great advantage over
> those of us on this group with more recent colonial
> ancestors.
>
> Renia is correct to say that it seems harder for those of
> us with more
> recent British ancestry to connect to gentry or royalty.
> I have three such
> 'gateway' lines, but they have been established only
> after nearly 20 long,
> but rewarding, years of research and many trips to
> overseas repositories and
> libraries.
>
> Robert O'Connor
>
>
Renia
> Of my own mother's American parents' 64 gggg-grandparents
> (whose births fall very roughly around 1700), I know 54 or more --
> and a leading reason (as Paul's explained) is that the ancestors of
> all but say 5 of these had arrived in the US before 1678. (I can add
> that as stats -- plus certain idiosyncratic socio-econ events --
> would have it, then, at least 5 of these lines descend directly from
> 'medieval gateway' ancestors, so that the number of my apparent
> Plantagenet descents is more than I'd like to take the time, or set
> my gen-app, to count.) _Contrast_ with this that the antecedents of
> my only known ancestor on my mother's side to have arrived in America
> in the _19th_ century -- one of her father's own grandmothers, born
> in England in 1816, i.e. more than 100 years _more_recently_ -- still
> remain a total mystery to me. This in spite of the fact that her
> surname (Duell) is reasonably unusual, and clusters at the time in
> just the region (Hants/Wilts) where explicit family lore says she was
> born. One reason is anecdotal - her parents were undoubtedly Baptist
> and her case will have been affected by historical and doctrinal
> peculiarities associated with this; but it falls within the general
> range of causes Paul's mentioned.
A rare name. Only 486 of them in England, Scotland and Wales in the 1881 census,
but under quite a variety of spellings (Duell, Dewell, and the more rare Dooel,
Dewal)
70 born Warwicks (19 Duel/l, rest variants)
49 born Hampshire (all but one spelt Duell, one Duel)
1 born Wilsthire (Duell)
If the family were baptists, then this might prove useful.
http://catalogue.pro.gov.uk/ExternalRequest.asp?RequestReference=ri2192
For comparison, the surname Jewell (same pronounciation as Duell) totalled 3,573
persons in 1881, predominantly in the south-west counties.
Renia
malinda
George Washington's *grandfather* whose sister, Anne , married Major Francis
Wright.
George Washington's *great grandfather* was Col John Washington s/o Rev
Lawrence Washington and Amphyllis Twigden (and grandson of Margaret Butler &
Lawrence Washington, Gent of Sulgrave).Col John Washington was the Immigrant
ancestor who married Anne Pope d/o Lt. Col Nathaniel Pope.
~malinda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Renia" <ren...@DUMPbtinternet.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: Overall Reliability of Medieval Lineages
>
>
Robert O'Connor
> probably recite your ancestors right back to the specific
> boat they came in...or so I have heard.
by oral tradition only
>
> I have the same problem as you for tracking down those
> ancestors who were not royal, noble or rich. You may even
> have something of an edge by still being part of Britain in
> a technical sense
Whilst not of genealogical interest, I couldn't let that statement go by
without comment. New Zealand is NOT part of Britain in a technical or any
other sense! New Zealand's status in international law is precisely the
same as the United States - i.e. that of independent sovereign state. NZ
was, like the constituent states of the original United States, a British
colony, but like the United States is now independent. NZ ceased to be a
colony in 1907.
>Only a
> small percentage of Americans who are doing genealogical
> work can trace their family to a specific ancestor in New
> England - most came through Ellis Island on the East Coast
> or Angel Island on the West Coast; some (like my English
> grandfather) wandered across the Canadian border and
> "forgot" to go back; other Americans wandered or swam
> across the other border.
I wonder why then is much attention given to the medieval & royal origins of
immigrants to the British American colonies prior to 1700? Why do there
appear to be few works (RD500 excepted) on the Plantagenent origins of 19th
century immigrants to America?
. Did immigrants to New Zealand feel a need to cut
> their ties with their homeland? Did they feel that they
> were transformed from Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh
> families into New Zealanders?
Not in the same sense as immigrants seem to instantly regard themselves as
Americans. Also, as it is estimated that 80% of modern New Zealanders have
some British ancestry a separate NZ identity has only really developed since
the First World War and then only slowly. Essentially until say the 1960s
NZers very much considered themselves to be 'British' (in the widest
possible sense). It was only when Britain started to focus on Europe that
NZ (and Australia for that matter) started to focus on its' own identity.
Robert O'Connor
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
> ancestors who were not royal, noble or rich. You may even
> have something of an edge by still being part of Britain in
> a technical sense
"Whilst not of genealogical interest, I couldn't let that statement go
by without comment. New Zealand is NOT part of Britain in a technical
or any other sense! New Zealand's status in international law is
precisely the same as the United States - i.e. that of independent
sovereign state. NZ was, like the constituent states of the original
United States, a British colony, but like the United States is now
independent. NZ ceased to be a colony in 1907."
Robert O'Connor
---------------------------
I, for one, am quite happy you didn't let it just ---- "go by".
It represented very sloppy thinking, very sloppy thinking indeed ----
characteristic of many Americans who have been the recipients of a
shabby education, governed and formulated by academic cretins.
Deus Vult.
Paul C. Reed
> "Paul C. Reed" wrote:
>
> > So many Americans with Colonial ancestry jump into England
> > around 1600 to 1650, and if you are talking a family of gentry,
> > well....
> IF you are talking gentry, and then of course, proving it. Not everyone called
> Willis was gentry, for example.
No, but Francis Willis and that branch of the Virginia family do have
a proven connection (though I did list a different disproven claim
Sam Sloan posted), so my point is still quite valid.
> > Catherine Spencer, and it turns out she was a junior branch of the Spencers
> > of Althorp who somehow lost most of their inheritance and married
> > a prominent yeoman, sailing to America where they were able to
> > purchase over 1,000 acres near Litchfield, CT (Davies Hollow).
>
> That doesn't make you related to you-know-who, does it?
>
> Renia
No, not unless he posts whatever claim he makes to his connection
to the Spencer family. ; )
Cheers,
Paul
Paul C. Reed
"David R. Teague" wrote:
>
> <snip>
> The impression one gets is that all or most American families can trace
> back to royal ancestors, which certainly what I would dispute.
> <snip>
>
If you had professional genealogists researching all of their ancestry, I
would bet that the majority of Americans with English ancestry could trace
some families into England in the sixteenth century, and likely at least
one genty family which traces earlier.
Paul
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
I would bet that the majority of Americans with English ancestry could
trace some families into England in the sixteenth century, and likely at
Paul
------------------------
Sloppy.
1. Reed is trolling for clients ---- desperately.
2. He will probably drop most of them off in the 16th Century [1500's]
and say, "So sorry, I can't get you any further! Sorry about that, but
here's my bill."
Hilarious!
Illegitimis Non Carborundum.
How Sweet It Is!
Sam Sloan
>Renia wrote:
>
>> "Paul C. Reed" wrote:
>>
>> > So many Americans with Colonial ancestry jump into England
>> > around 1600 to 1650, and if you are talking a family of gentry,
>> > well....
>
>> IF you are talking gentry, and then of course, proving it. Not everyone
called
>> Willis was gentry, for example.
>
>No, but Francis Willis and that branch of the Virginia family do have
>a proven connection (though I did list a different disproven claim
>Sam Sloan posted), so my point is still quite valid.
>
Can you please tell me what the connection is, exactly?
I asked you this question before, but you never responded.
Francis Willis was the father-in-law of Mildred Washington, who was the
aunt of President George Washington. However, I have not been able to find
out the ancestry of Francis Willis.
Sam Sloan
Francisco Antonio Doria
Since Bronwen mentioned me, I'll add my twopence to
the discussion. (We are actually having the same
discussion in the Portugal-L list, under the question,
how far can we go?)
There are several of the so-called Royal Gateways in
Brazil in Colonial times:
1) Jeronimo de Albuquerque, Pernambuco (Northeastern
Brazil, c. 1540.).
Agnatic ancestry: the Albuquerque Gomide family,
traceable to c. 1350; through female lines they are
descended (illegitimately) from D. Diniz of Portugal
and D. Sancho IV of Castille. Jeronimo de Albuquerque
was a nobleman, a fidalgo da casa real.
2) Luisa de Mello de Vasconcellos (Bahia, 1551).
Agnatically she was descended from the Vasconcellos
Alvarenga family (traceable up to the 12th century),
but had royal connections through the Albuquerques;
see above. Her brother Bartolomeu de Vasconcellos was
a fidalgo cavaleiro at the king's Court (a kind of
baronet).
3) The Moniz Barreto de Meneses family (several
branches, settled in Bahia and Rio, from 1549 to the
early 1700s). They trace their royal descent from King
D. Afonso III; agnatically they are minor civil
servants in the mid 14th century, but inherit the
whole Portuguese medieval lines through the Barretos.
4) The Moraes de Antas family of S. Paulo, c. 1580 in
Brazil, traceable to King Afonso Henriques (not in the
male line, which goes down from the early Braganção
clan).
5) Hieronimo Dornellas de Menezes, deep South, c.
1720. Agnatically: minor noblemen, of the Ruas family.
But descended from the old Meneses family.
chico
--- Arthur Murata <lostc...@yahoo.com> escreveu: >
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCities. É fácil e grátis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/
Leslie Mahler
How many of them are still considered reliable?
========== Several, but you'd have to study them yourself to check for
accuracy.
> There are volumes which trace 5 generations of descendants for Mayflower
> passengers, with documentation for all generations.
One ship. Not everyone in America is a Mayflower descendant, surely?
============ No, but many thousands are. And it was given as *an example*.
> Also worthy of mention are works such as Savage's Genealogical Dictionary of
> New England, and many other helpful local resources - an example is, the Great
> Migration Begins - which a study of ALL New England colonists from 1620 to
> 1633.
>
> Now, as far as I know, no one has but together similar works for England.
> For example, someone could make a "Genealogical Dictionary of Rutland", a
> compilation on families from 1600 to 1650.
Well, Burke's Peerage and Burke's Landed Gentry come to mind, but they were
confined to the artistocracy and gentry landowners and have problems of their
own.
In the 20th century, more and more genealogies are being published in family
history journals, but there is no co-ordinated effort to publish them all in
one
source. The internet will probably make up for this as more people publish on
Rootsweb, or wherever, but there are always the careless who miss a few
generations. (I've come across sons who were 100 years older than parents and
other ridiculous scenarios.)
Renia
=========== Ive only published one royal descent so far (from Edward III).
But Im younger than a lot of researchers, so theres still hope for me.
Leslie
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Francisco Antonio Doria
Let me add some more info here: some 150 family groups
arrived in Bahia, Brazil, from 1510 to 1750. I can
trace a few generations of those in Portugal for some
30 family groups; they come from all kinds of social
background. At least a very wealthy and prominent
family in the 1700s are agnatically descended from
clay potters in the 1500s; they later married into the
local nobility.
I can trace some 10-15 of those immigrant family
groups to European nobility (always secondary branches
of noble families of all sorts; there are younger
brothers of Hoffähig people, and also nobility that
turns into gentry, and enriched bourgeoisie with
patents of nobility). The case of the Italian families
is vey interesting: there is the group of Ghibeline
Genoese families in the Madeira and in Brazil
(Lomellini, Spinola, Doria) and the Florentine
merchants (Acciaioli, Cavalcanti, Salviati). They all
went to Portugal to do business; I have a document of
my (presumed, they are always so) ancestor Aleramo
Doria who acted as a banker for King John III of
Portugal.
Since these people came to Brazil from the 16th to the
18th century, their descent is legion.
chico
--- Francisco Antonio Doria <dori...@yahoo.com.br>
escreveu: >
=== message truncated ===
Jonas Kuschner
"Robert O'Connor" <roco...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a1qlma$5dv$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Pity the poor New Zealander of European origin who must first trace the
> country of origin of his immigrant ancestors - who generally would have
> arrived in the country between 1850 and 1900. Being a country of
nineteenth
> century colonial origins those immigrant ancestors could have come from
> anywhere in Europe, in my case they came from Ireland, England, Germany &
> Sweden. Then one must locate the specific parish, village or town from
> whence they came or were born, and begin the search all over again in each
> of those various countries!! Not only does one encounter the problem of
> population movement due to the industrial revolution, as in British
context,
> but one also is asked to master several new languages!!
>
Have you tried to trace your Swedish ancestors? Sweden usually has excellent
records (ministerial, legal and administrative). As long as you have some
reasonable starting point, you are likely to reach the late 17th in most and
the late 16th century in at least a few lines. If you find a connection to
one of the older noble families, you may also find medieval ancestry. As I
recall that you yourself pointed out a couple of months ago, medieval
genealogy is not all about that big island off the coast of Bretagne (and
the few religious fanatics who left that particular island for the American
colonies ;-)).
You could start by posting (read the English instructions) to the Swedish
genealogical discussion board "Anbytarforum",
http://genealogi.aland.net/discus/
Regards
Jonas Kuschner
Uppsala
Robert O'Connor
"Jonas Kuschner" <jonas.k...@noaddresshere.se> wrote in message
news:3c41...@puffinus.its.uu.se...
>
> Have you tried to trace your Swedish ancestors? Sweden usually has
excellent
> records (ministerial, legal and administrative). As long as you have some
> reasonable starting point, you are likely to reach the late 17th in most
and
> the late 16th century in at least a few lines. If you find a connection to
> one of the older noble families, you may also find medieval ancestry. As I
> recall that you yourself pointed out a couple of months ago, medieval
> genealogy is not all about that big island off the coast of Bretagne (and
> the few religious fanatics who left that particular island for the
American
> colonies ;-)).
>
> You could start by posting (read the English instructions) to the Swedish
> genealogical discussion board "Anbytarforum",
> http://genealogi.aland.net/discus/
>
> Regards
> Jonas Kuschner
> Uppsala
>
>
> You could start by posting (read the English instructions) to the Swedish
> genealogical discussion board "Anbytarforum",
> http://genealogi.aland.net/discus/
>
> Regards
> Jonas Kuschner
> Uppsala
>
Thank you
I have indeed researched some of my Swedish ancestry, with some success,
back to
1717 on one line and to 1660 on another.
I will however post to the discussion board as you have suggested.
With thanks
Robert O'Connor
>
Renia
I'm afraid that this is just the kind of blanket statment I would disagree
with. While you have a lot of British records available at Salt Lake City, you
don't have them all. You won't know who you will find until you find him. And
if he is hidden in the records only in Britain, then you won't find him, but
you might think you've found him in SLC if you come across someone of his name
in approximately the right area.
Renia
Renia
the brother and sister rather than just the brother himself.
Renia
Bryant Smith
> "Religious freedom" is what we Americans are taught in
> grade school but it is largely a fairy tale since it
> applied to only a miniscule percentage of immigrants.
> Certainly, Granted, there are notable exceptions -
> Anabaptists, Mormons, Puritans, etc. but they account for
> only a few of millions who came to America. Best, Bronwen
>
in its origins. The history of their emigrations under persecution
gives the lie to our vaunted "freedom of religion."
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
(still a U.S. citizen!)
Jonas Kuschner
"Bryant Smith" <ski...@racsa.co.cr> wrote in message
news:a9b2ce02.0201...@posting.google.com...
> >
> The "Mormons" did not come to America. Their sect was American
> in its origins. The history of their emigrations under persecution
> gives the lie to our vaunted "freedom of religion."
Yes, but they began at an early point to send missionaries to Europe,
converting people here who subsequently emigrated to the USA. The level of
persecution or harassment that the new Mormons were subjected to, if any,
probably varied between countries.
Jonas
malinda
VATh...@aol.com
All my paternal lines trace back to Colonial VA, none having come over
on the Mayflower. The majority came from England and the rest from
Scotland.
They also continued the "royal" breeding practice of intermarrying between
family lines. (It has been a nightmare to sort them out because each new
generation were given the Christian names of the previous generations.)
~Virginia
D._Spencer...@aya.yale.edu wrote:
<< "If you had professional genealogists researching all of their ancestry,
I would bet that the majority of Americans with English ancestry could
trace some families into England in the sixteenth century, and likely at
least one genty [sic] family which traces earlier."
Paul
John Steele Gordon
This is off topic, of course, but many, many Mormons converted by
missionaries sent abroad have emigrated to the United States. In the 19th
century many of these Mormon immigrants were from Scandinavia, which is why
Scandinavian names are so common among Mormons.
And the Puritans were not in the least interested in religious freedom. They
came to New England so that they could have an established religion of their
liking. Disagreeing with that established orthodoxy was not exactly
encouraged. Just ask Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson. My 8th great
grandfather, the Rev. William Screven, got booted out of Maine with his
congregation in 1682 for trying to organize a Baptist congregation. He moved
to South Carolina, where most sects were tolerated, even after the Anglican
church was later officially established there.
If anyone knows his English origins (we know only that he was born in
Somerton, Somersetshire, 1629), do please let me know.
JSG
MTaHT
>"Religious freedom" is what we Americans are taught in
>grade school but it is largely a fairy tale since it
>applied to only a miniscule percentage of immigrants.
>Certainly, Granted, there are notable exceptions -
>Anabaptists, Mormons, Puritans, etc. but they
I was taught no such thing.
The above message is only true after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution
by all of the states.
The Mormans originated here after that time, had religious freedom, but were
not allowed polygamous marriages.
The Puritans did not come to America for religious freedom, as Protestants they
already had that in Britain. They came so that they could impose their beliefs
on others. Followers of other Protestant sects were flogged or pilloried,
Catholics and Jews were hanged or burned at the stake prior to the very late
1700s.
Please excuse this off-topic reply.
Best wishes,
Mike Talbot,
Louisiana
John Steele Gordon
news:20020113142102...@mb-mf.aol.com...
> The above message is only true after the ratification of the U.S.
Constitution
> by all of the states.
Actually the 1st amendment only applied to the federal government at that
time. The Congregational Church was established in Connecticut as late as
the 1830's.
> The Mormans originated here after that time, had religious freedom, but
were
> not allowed polygamous marriages.
They had religious freedom in theory, but not in fact. The history of the
Mormon trek from Kirkland, Ohio, to Independence, Missouri, to Nahvoo,
Illinois, (where Joseph Smith the prophet was murdered), to Salt Lake City,
is a monument to religious intolerance. To be sure, the Mormons were way out
of the Christian mainstream. And they practiced polygamy until the 1890's
when the leader had a revelation and ended it. Utah was admitted as a state
soon afterwards. Those events were not unconnected. One of my favorite
political cartoons of that era was printed after Brigham Young's death. It
showed a vast bed with an empty place in the middle and numerous
inconsolable widows on either side of it. Polygamy has been, of course,
practiced in fact, if not in legal theory, right up to the present.
> The Puritans did not come to America for religious freedom, as Protestants
they
> already had that in Britain.
Please. A major cause of the English Civil War was the fact that the
Puritans did NOT have religious freedom. Archbishop Laud was not exactly one
of those let-a-hundred-flowers-bloom type clerics. Tolerance for
non-Anglican Protestants came only after the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
> They came so that they could impose their beliefs
> on others.
On whom? They made a few attempts to convert the Indians, but it was
largely a failure. They came to erect their own shining city on a hill.
> Followers of other Protestant sects were flogged or pilloried,
> Catholics and Jews were hanged or burned at the stake prior to the very
late
> 1700s.
Some non-Puritan Protestants were badly treated, to be sure (see my previous
post). But no one was ever burned at the stake for religious reasons that I
know of in the colonies. The Salem witches were hanged. (Slaves involved in
revolts in the middle and Southern colonies were sometimes burned at the
stake.) Nor am I aware of anyone being executed (by whatever means) for
religious reasons, other than possession by the devil. And certainly not in
the late 18th century, which was a long way, in more ways than just
chronological, from the 17th. Jews were established in Rhode Island as early
as 1645 (and in New York even earlier--Peter Stuyvesant tried to have them
expelled, along with the Quakers, and was told in no uncertain terms to mind
his own business so that the Jews and the Quakers could mind theirs). It is
hard to imagine a Jew or a Catholic coming to mid-17th century Massachusetts
or Connecticut for any reason other than shipwreck, and then would have been
saying "get me OUT of here!" pretty quickly. They would have been obliged, I
promise you.
JSG
Renia
during that period many people left England for American shores to escape papal
doctrine. But I have read somewhere, that in America, most of the sects were
even more intolerant of other sects than papism had been of them, which caused
some friction such as JSG describes below.
Renia
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
The Oppressed turn into Oppressors.
Israelis, for example.
Original Sin.
Deus Vult.
"Much have I travelled in the realms of gold, And many goodly states and
kingdoms seen; Round many western islands have I been, Which bards in
fealty to Apollo hold." -- John Keats [1795-1821] -- Poems [1817] -- "On
First Looking Into Chapman's Homer"
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Renia" <ren...@DUMPbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3C41F6B0...@DUMPbtinternet.com...
Nichol
> "Religious freedom" is what we Americans are taught in
> grade school but it is largely a fairy tale since it
> applied to only a miniscule percentage of immigrants.
> Certainly, Granted, there are notable exceptions -
> Anabaptists, Mormons, Puritans, etc. but they account for
> only a few of millions who came to America. Best, Bronwen
So I suppose my Huguenot ancestors, who bartered their very bodies as
indentured servants to escape the Catholic persecution in France, were
all a "fairy tale"?
.:Nichol:.
Cdunn3
>Some non-Puritan Protestants were badly treated, to be sure (see my previous
>post). But no one was ever burned at the stake for religious reasons that I
>know of in the colonies. The Salem witches were hanged. (Slaves involved in
>revolts in the middle and Southern colonies were sometimes burned at the
>stake.) Nor am I aware of anyone being executed (by whatever means) for
>religious reasons, other than possession by the devil.
I respectfully disagree. Mary Dyer, who
happens to be an ancestor of mine (and
probably others in the group), was a
Quaker, and was exectuted by hanging
in Boston on 1 June 1660, because of
her religious beliefs.
CarlDunn
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
"Much have I travelled in the realms of gold, And many goodly states and
kingdoms seen; Round many western islands have I been, Which bards in
fealty to Apollo hold." -- John Keats [1795-1821] -- Poems [1817] -- "On
First Looking Into Chapman's Homer"
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Cdunn3" <cdu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020113173107...@mb-cj.aol.com...
MTaHT
As a descendant of Huguenots, also, I cannot attribute their migration to
"religeous freedom".
The goal of the Huguenots was the crown of France, itself. They were led by
some of the most noble and able military families and commanders in France and
nearly attained complete victory. Read about Louis 1 prince de Conde de
Bourbon (d.1569), adm.Gaspard 2 de Coligny (d.1572), etc. At the peak of their
power, they controlled most of southern France by force of arms. Henry
IV(d.1611), one of their own, did become king, but found it politic to say that
he was a convert to Catholicism to try to conteract the rebellions to his
reign.
Although religion was involved, the primary motivation for the Huguenot exodus
after the fall of their fortress at laRochelle was the secular charge of
treason for bearing arms against the king.
Yes, I know about St.Barthelemy's Day (1572), but if one reads the details, it
was more of a personal grudge (and probably a mistaken one) by the Guise
brothers against Gaspard 2 de Coligny. The Guise's believed that Coligny
assasinated their father.
Also, a few years later, think about Cardinal Richelieu allying Catholic France
with the Protestant princes of Germany and Navarre against Catholic Spain and
the H.R.E. These were secular wars, not wars of religion, though some treated
them as such. At the same time, Richelieu was fighting the Huguenots, at home,
who were supplied by his very Protestant allies.
Sorry for the over-simplification, but a complete treatment of Huguenot times
would require a library of its own.
Best wishes,
Mike Talbot
David R. Teague
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:04:33 GMT "John Steele Gordon"
<ance...@optonline.net> writes:
"MTaHT" <mt...@aol.com> wrote in message
<snip>
Nor am I aware of anyone being executed (by whatever means) for religious
reasons, other than possession by the devil.
<snip>
Oh, no? What about Mary Dyer and the other three Quakers hanged on Boston
Common around 1660? You could, I suppose, argue that -- technically --
they were killed for violation of an order of banishment, but then you
come up against the fact that, like numerous others (including Anne
Hutchinson and Roger Williams) they were banished for being Quakers.
Now, can we please get back to medieval genealogy?
David Teague
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Cdunn3
_Spencer_...@aya.yale.edu
wrote:
>What were the charges against her?
>
>
A brief explanation of the events
leading to her execution can be found
at:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
However, other websites make it clear that she was banished under pain
of death, flouted the law more than once by returning to Boston ---- and
only then was executed.
Stern Justice ---- and we should certainly say it was a Bad Law and
quite unjust.
But, you've misrepresented what happened.
She wasn't hanged for her religious beliefs. She was hanged because she
violated the terms of her sentencing ---- banishment, and no return
under pain of death.
AGAIN ---- Bad Law.
BUT, get the facts straight.
You don't seem to realize that in the Massachusetts Colony of this
period, Church and State were closely intertwined in ways we should find
totally unacceptable today.
You need a Sense of History.
Mary Dyer had flouted the civil state, not just the religious order.
Deus Vult.
"Much have I travelled in the realms of gold, And many goodly states and
kingdoms seen; Round many western islands have I been, Which bards in
fealty to Apollo hold." -- John Keats [1795-1821] -- Poems [1817] -- "On
First Looking Into Chapman's Homer"
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Cdunn3" <cdu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020113202204...@mb-ms.aol.com...
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
that details Farmers and the Land in America.
http://www.usda.gov/history2/text3.htm
Using land as a measuring stick, it notes:
"17th century
Small land grants commonly made to
individual settlers; large tracts often
granted to well-connected colonists"
. . .
"18th century
English farmers settled in New England
villages; Dutch, German, Swedish, Scotch-
Irish, and English farmers settled on isolated
Middle Colony farmsteads; English and
some French farmers settled on plantations
in tidewater and on isolated Southern Colony
farmsteads in Piedmont; . . ."
Determining the rate of intermarriage with
the "common population" of the larger tract
owners in the 17th century could provide
an estimate of potential medieval connectabilty
for the later 1790 total population of 3,929,214,
of which farmers made up about 90% of
the labor force. Consideration would also
need to be given to the proportion of wealthy,
nobility connected entrants to the New World
between the 17th century and the 1790 Census.
Also, regional sample sets of small land grants,
for ratio determination of individual settlers
with either limited lines, or more extended
pedigrees among this particular population
group. Farm links are found at:
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/geneal.htm
SEE ALSO:
Archives and Knowledge Management
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/archives.htm
LOOK FOR, under Business:
Classification of American Wealth:
History and genealogy of the wealthy families
of America. [This is a work in progress.]
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/
<http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/%7Evctinney/>
"Free Coverage of the Genealogy World in a Nutshell"
Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] -
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
-------------------------------------------------------
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>"If you had professional genealogists researching all of their ancestry,
>I would bet that the majority of Americans with English ancestry could
>trace some families into England in the sixteenth century, and likely at
>least one genty [sic] family which traces earlier."
>
>Paul
>------------------------
>
>Sloppy.
>
>1. Reed is trolling for clients ---- desperately.
>
>2. He will probably drop most of them off in the 16th Century [1500's]
>and say, "So sorry, I can't get you any further! Sorry about that, but
>here's my bill."
>
>Hilarious!
>
>Illegitimis Non Carborundum.
>
>How Sweet It Is!
>
Carpenter, Charles
line of thought that since the religious dissenters who came to North
America didn't extend religious freedom to people who did not agree with
them, the whole idea that people came to North America for religious freedom
is a myth. The fallacious nature of this argument is easily demonstrated by
substituting the motive for settlement of a different part of North America:
People must not have traveled to California in 1849 to find gold and get
rich, because once there they did not try to find ways for new people going
there later to get rich too.
Puritans and others went to America to experience religious freedom. They
were not interested in establishing tolerance for other people -- let them
go found their own societies where they can have their own freedom. This is
why banishment, rather than execution, would be the first penalty of choice
for heresy (unless, of course, Satan himself was directly involved . . .)
*****************************************************
This electronic mail transmission contains confidential
information intended only for the person(s) named.
Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure
by another person is strictly prohibited.
*****************************************************
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
Very well put.
And then things began to evolve........History is funny that way ----
one thing leads to another ---- and often involves unintended
consequences.
Thank you.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War
endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always
here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting
the ultimate practitioner." ---- Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian: Or the
Evening Redness in the West [1985]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Carpenter, Charles" <CARP...@pepperlaw.com> wrote in message
news:5B26630DC488D411AB6200D0B7C9FF49685A13@DCSRV09...
Arthur Murata
among the few who immigrated for reasons of religious
freedom; I am aware of Joseph Smith and the tablets etc
etc. but I also have one set of g-g-grandparents who were
immigrants of this kind. They may not have been part of
Brigham Young's group but they were only a year or so
behind him. Stories of my g-g-grandmother's hands being
permanently crippled from pushing the handcart across the
continent have come down to my generation. Their starting
point was Northumbria and the date was about 1847, give or
take a year in one or the other direction. My
g-g-grandfather was a carpenter and elder in the church who
helped built the Tabernacle. I am not Mormon and I think
that their daughter probably left the religion (she ended
up in California in a family without any official religious
affiliation). In researching her parents (and grandparents,
some of whom also came, I found shipload after shipload of
people - just from the borderlands between England and
Scotland - coming over to migrate to Salt Lake City. Best,
Bronwen Edwards (their names, incidentally, if anyone knows
of them I would be glad to know more: William Knox and Kate
Tearn; daughter was Mae Knox.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
Arthur Murata
--- Robert O'Connor <roco...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> Of course, if you were Maori you could
> > probably recite your ancestors right back to the
> specific
> > boat they came in...or so I have heard.
>
Some would say that oral tradition is generally more
reliable than written tradition because of the brain damage
we inflict upon ourselves by becoming literate. Of course,
modern Maoris are literate and I am sure that they have
written down their genealogies for posterity many times
over and have begun to get as memory-atrophied as the rest
of us. In the area where I live we have Hmong and Mien
Elders who grew up without having their language written
down at all; that came only about 30 years ago. They sew
their accounts onto fabric and make beautiful tapestries
with detailed family histories on them which are given to
their heirs. What is astonishing is their power of memory.
It far exceeds that of most people who have been literate
for a longer period of time. When a tradition is oral, it
is all the more important to get it right every time. I
would trust the Maori accounts completely.
>
> >
> > I have the same problem as you for tracking down those
> > ancestors who were not royal, noble or rich. You may
> even
> > have something of an edge by still being part of
> Britain in
> > a technical sense
>
> Whilst not of genealogical interest, I couldn't let that
> statement go by
> without comment. New Zealand is NOT part of Britain in a
> technical or any
> other sense! New Zealand's status in international law
> is precisely the
> same as the United States - i.e. that of independent
> sovereign state. NZ
> was, like the constituent states of the original United
> States, a British
> colony, but like the United States is now independent.
> NZ ceased to be a
> colony in 1907.
>
> Mea culpa! I stand corrected. Thank you.
> >Only a
> > small percentage of Americans who are doing
> genealogical
> > work can trace their family to a specific ancestor in
> New
> > England - most came through Ellis Island on the East
> Coast
> > or Angel Island on the West Coast; some (like my
> English
> > grandfather) wandered across the Canadian border and
> > "forgot" to go back; other Americans wandered or swam
> > across the other border.
>
> I wonder why then is much attention given to the medieval
> & royal origins of
> immigrants to the British American colonies prior to
> 1700? Why do there
> appear to be few works (RD500 excepted) on the
> Plantagenent origins of 19th
> century immigrants to America?
I've wondered about that too and can only assume that the
task would be too massive to handle. I cannot claim any
colonial ancestors with ties to royalty but if they
included Scots who immigrated to Canada from the British
West Indies in 1840 or Anglo-Irish who immigrated to Canada
in 1830 (before the great potato famine), I would be in
business. Although it was not until the 20th century that
one of the most important lines in my family came to
America - my grandfather, Sidney Webb. I think by that time
there would just be too many people for even the biggest
computer in the world to untangle!
>
> . Did immigrants to New Zealand feel a need to cut
> > their ties with their homeland? Did they feel that they
> > were transformed from Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh
> > families into New Zealanders?
>
> Not in the same sense as immigrants seem to instantly
> regard themselves as
> Americans. Also, as it is estimated that 80% of modern
> New Zealanders have
> some British ancestry a separate NZ identity has only
> really developed since
> the First World War and then only slowly. Essentially
> until say the 1960s
> NZers very much considered themselves to be 'British' (in
> the widest
> possible sense). It was only when Britain started to
> focus on Europe that
> NZ (and Australia for that matter) started to focus on
> its' own identity.
>
> Robert O'Connor
>
> Thank you for your patience and detailed reply. Good
thoughts, Bronwen Edwards
Arthur Murata
California) just never got around to saying anything about
New Zealand. Maybe they wished they'd been sent there
instead of to cold, foggy El Cerrito (across the bay from
San Francisco). One Irish nun, however, did teach me (when
we were drawing the continents and coloring them with
crayons in the second grade) that the ocean is blue
everywhere in the world except around Ireland where it is
green. Ah, yes, the tidy hideaway on volcanic sands of my
one true love (my husband's too). We would never have
engaged in anything sloppy now, would we? But, boy, that
sand can get bumpy underneath your rear!
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spencer...@aya.yale.edu>
wrote:
> > I have the same problem as you for tracking down those
> > ancestors who were not royal, noble or rich. You may
> even
> > have something of an edge by still being part of
> Britain in
> > a technical sense
>
> "Whilst not of genealogical interest, I couldn't let that
> statement go
> by without comment. New Zealand is NOT part of Britain
> in a technical
> or any other sense! New Zealand's status in
> international law is
> precisely the same as the United States - i.e. that of
> independent
> sovereign state. NZ was, like the constituent states of
> the original
> United States, a British colony, but like the United
> States is now
> independent. NZ ceased to be a colony in 1907."
>
> Robert O'Connor
> ---------------------------
>
> I, for one, am quite happy you didn't let it just ----
> "go by".
>
> It represented very sloppy thinking, very sloppy thinking
> indeed ----
> characteristic of many Americans who have been the
> recipients of a
> shabby education, governed and formulated by academic
> cretins.
>
> Deus Vult.
>
> "Much have I travelled in the realms of gold, And many
> goodly states and
> kingdoms seen; Round many western islands have I been,
> Which bards in
> fealty to Apollo hold." -- John Keats [1795-1821] --
> Poems [1817] -- "On
> First Looking Into Chapman's Homer"
>
> "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for
> good men to do
> nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
>
> All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
>
> All original material contained herein is copyright and
> property of the
> author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this
> forum and with an
> attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise
> expressly
> given, in writing.
> ----------
>
> D. Spencer Hines
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
> Vires et Honor
>
>
Arthur Murata
--- MTaHT <mt...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Religious freedom" is what we Americans are taught in
> >grade school but it is largely a fairy tale since it
> >applied to only a miniscule percentage of immigrants.
> >Certainly, Granted, there are notable exceptions -
> >Anabaptists, Mormons, Puritans, etc. but they
>
> I was taught no such thing.
You must have gone to an unusual grade school if it was in
the U.S.!
>
> The above message is only true after the ratification of
> the U.S. Constitution
> by all of the states.
In the official sense, of course, you are correct. However,
colonists did come with all kinds of odd, er...interesting
notions about religon. Few Americans realize the extent,
for example, to which some of the "founding fathers" were
non-religious.
>
> The Mormans originated here after that time, had
> religious freedom, but were
> not allowed polygamous marriages.
There was much more to that story that polygamous
marriages. Something about setting themselves up in a
country of their own, Deseret, that would be independent of
the U.S.? And something about joining with the Ute Indians
to attack non-Mormon wagon trains passing through or near
Utah? The Mormon Wars (and countless acts of hostility that
happened between individuals) were much more complex that
disagreement on how many marriage partners a man might
have.
>
> The Puritans did not come to America for religious
> freedom, as Protestants they
> already had that in Britain. They came so that they
> could impose their beliefs
> on others. Followers of other Protestant sects were
> flogged or pilloried,
> Catholics and Jews were hanged or burned at the stake
> prior to the very late
> 1700s.
>
Again, correct to a degree. The Puritans, of course, did
not have a crystal ball to see the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights in the future, but they did believe that
America was a land being prepared for them by God. One of
the justifications given by Cotton Mather for the war of
extermination against the Pequot Nation was that they could
earn their way into Heaven by destroying the "vermin
infresting" the land that would be their new paradise.
Mather also found it a matter of divine providence that
Indians were dying in great numbers from European diseases
- he saw this as God's way of helping them clear the land
for their own occupation of it. And in England, as I have
heard it explained in university classes, they were not
regarded as anything close to mainstream and were busy
buying up large tracts of land (therefore threatening
various levels of power in a country that was only then
leaving its feudal social organization behind). Since they
were being seen as a weird extremist cult by the English
establishment - a cult that might be dangerous if it became
too powerful by controlling too much territory - they opted
for the "God has a better place for us in America" line.
> Please excuse this off-topic reply.
>
> Best wishes,
> Mike Talbot,
> Louisiana
>
It does not seem too off-topic to me - it is the end of the
relevant historical period and genealogical in the sense
that descent from colonial Americans or connecting colonial
Americans to European royalty are such frequent topics.
After all, the colonies were a marvelous way for non-heirs
to find some adventure and money with which they might
return home (or not). Best, Bronwen Edwards
Arthur Murata
--- Renia <ren...@DUMPbtinternet.com> wrote:
> The rise of Papism under Charles I was not condusive to
> sectarian worship and
> during that period many people left England for American
> shores to escape papal
> doctrine. But I have read somewhere, that in America,
> most of the sects were
> even more intolerant of other sects than papism had been
> of them, which caused
> some friction such as JSG describes below.
>
> Renia
>
was actively outlawed throughout the Americas, especially
in the U.S. and Canada. In spite of noble-sounding but
ineffective legislation "granting" religious freedom to
American Indians in 1978, the U.S. still does not allow the
Native people to practice their traditional religions
without harassment or, sometimes, imprisonment. In fact, as
any student of U.S. government knows, the religious freedom
is not absolute for anyone. Any religious group might find
itself shut down if someone decides that there are
"overriding national interests" (in Tennessee that means
having dangerous snakes in a public place; in Pennsylvania
that means making sure that your grade school teacher is
state-certified even though your religion prohibits
education beyond the 8th grade; in New York City that means
refraining from killing a chicken for any purpose other
than to eat it - telling the future from its entrails is
forbidden, in California that means you may not slaughter a
cow or a pig for a feast after a shaman comes to work on a
family member, and for all American Indians that means
becoming registered with the federal government as
"practitioners" who are "enrolled" members of "federally
recognized" tribes in order to have the tools with which
you can pray - specifically the feathers or other body
parts of endangered species, or also in California you
cannot have a private place of worship if it also happens
to be a place where money can be made by other groups, i.e.
loggers, i could go on but I won't.) Although there is a
form of state religion in England, I would not be surprised
if members of other religions are less persecuted than in
some parts of America (leaving aside Northern Ireland...)
Best, Bronwen
Arthur Murata
you stand it? :>>>> Bronwen
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spencer...@aya.yale.edu>
wrote:
Arthur Murata
noted in my statement. I was not intending the examples to
be exhaustive nor the posting to be an example of
scholarship. I acknowledge and honor what your ancestors
endured. The fairy tale to which I refer is that we are
taught as children that religious freedom was the MAIN
reason, maybe even the ONLY reason why people came to
colonial America (the U.S./Canadian part). My point was
that while it was certain the reason for some people, it
was not the reason for most people.
My Anglo-Irish great-great-great-grandfather went to Canada
in 1830 because he could no longer afford the upkeep and
taxes on his estate in Tipperary. His wife's father,
Captain Andrew McInnes, left the British West Indies for
Canada in 1840 because he was no longer allowed to keep
slaves (his point of origin had been Perthshire). , My Hopi
great-grandfather was imprisoned for five years when he
tried to prevent the U.S. military taking his children to
put into federally run boarding schools where a different
religion (Christianity) would be forced on them and they
would have their original culture beaten out of them. Good
thoughts, Bronwen Edwards
Arthur Murata
thing got muddy somehow. It happens that many non-Native
and non-Spanish-speaking came to California in 1849 and
through the 1850s into early statehood for reasons other
than gold. There was a railroad to be built (the Chinese
left behind 20,000 pounds of bones alongside the tracks
while the Irish were applauded at Promontory Point); there
were services to be performed (laundry, restaurants,
prostitutes, casinos, travel accommodations,
photography...), and usually some mining on the side. My
great-great-grandfather Maurice Newman married a lady from
Germany in Mariposa County, bought John C. Fremont's
ranchhouse (directly from Fremont) to live in, and became
the first county clerk in the courthouse of Mariposa (which
is still standing). His son, Maurice Jr., became the `2nd
one.I do not believe that he ever had an interest in
mining. And the gold country is dotted with dozens of towns
that bear the names of women. Guess what they were there
for and why the townspeople were grateful (there are great
stories about how the prostitutes would form volunteer
bucket brigades to fight the fire and thereby earn the
respect of the townspeople). And the reason why there is a
familiar stereotype of Chinese Mandarin men setting up
laundry shops stems from their having done so in the
goldfields. The prospectors represented every walk of life
and every ethnic group in California, including the Native
people. Actually, though, I don't quite get your point.
Best, Bronwen Edwards
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
concerning the Polynesian genealogies
housed at the Bishop Museum.
"Genealogies which reach back any great
length of time in Polynesia are those of the
chiefs, whose claim to power derives from
being descended from mythical beings or gods.
These genealogies can only be properly
understood against a background of Polynesian
mythology, a knowledge of Polynesian
intrarelations and of the origin and spread
of the Polynesians throughout the islands
of Polynesia. . . .
The Maori genealogy enters their period
of authentic traditional history with the
name of Hotu Roa of the migrating
Tainui canoe at twenty-eight generations
before 1900 or about A.D. 1200. The
Hawaiian genealogy enters their
traditional history with Hanalanui, a
contemporary of Moekeha, who was
from Tahiti, at thirty-two generations,
or about A.D. 1100. In addition,
Hawaiian tradition states that Pili
(at twenty-nine generations, about
A.D. 1175) was brought to Hawaii
by priest Paao from Tahiti. 29
The period of settlement indicated
by this genealogy is in accord with
radiocarbon dates obtained from
archaeological investigations in
New Zealand and Hawaii.
. . .
Present radiocarbon dates allow for Fiji
being inhabited as far back as 1,500 B.C.,
Tonga 1,000 B.C., Samoa 500 B.C., the
Marquesas Islands A.D. 100, the Society
Islands A.D. 400, Easter Island A.D. 600,
New Zealand and Hawaii A.D. 750,
with Hawaii receiving new arrivals from
the Society Islands about A.D. 1250."
. . .
One migration pattern is suggested
by the sweet potato being introduced
early in Polynesian history from South
America.
http://www.byuh.edu/academics/divisions/ips/online_volumes/vol1/OLV1-1a1.html
<http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/%7Evctinney/geneal.htm>
SEE ALSO:
Archives and Knowledge Management
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/archives.htm
<http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/%7Evctinney/archives.htm>
LOOK FOR, under Business:
Classification of American Wealth:
History and genealogy of the wealthy families
of America. [This is a work in progress.]
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/
<http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/%7Evctinney/>
"Free Coverage of the Genealogy World in a Nutshell"
Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] -
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
-------------------------------------------------------