An Americans muddle with genealogy

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

An Americans muddle with genealogy

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 19 mar 2005 00:31:01

I was loaned a delightful book "Roots of the Rich and Famous", by Robert R. Davenport.
It glosses over genealogy and displays lots of interesting connections but there are also lots of inaccuracies. In the end of this book he requests people to contribute to a possible next book. As this book needs correcting I wrote to him on 19 February but have not as yet received a reply. I would like to display a few of my remarks most of them will tell what he had recorded in his book, much of it is not medieval but will give an idea about this book.

Page 1. William Christopher "who played Father Mulcahy on the long-running television series M*A*S*H." On page 55 it is recorded that Rene Auberjonois played that role.

Page 12. Jane Fonda. Her mother confused her "ancestor" with the nine-day Queen. The language used is deceptive, Lady Jane Grey is no-one-s ancestor---she had no children. Except for one son, Jane Seymour also has no descendants at all.

Page 13. A tree shows the link between F. Scott Fitzgerald and Francis Scott Key. Are you aware that Francis Scott Key is a descendant of King John of England, William the Conqueror, Lady Godiva and Charlemagne?

Page 14. Oliver Hardy. The story about Nelson and Hardy is always reported wrongly. Apparently he said "Kismet, Hardy " Kismet=fate, destiny

Page 16. Michael Wilding descends from John of Gaunt? How? "He was a direct descendant of the archbishop of Canterbury who crowned Queen Victoria." Direct descendant? Or an indirect descendant? I understand a person is a descendant (or ancestor) or not. By using the word direct it seems to imply a full male line of descent. In 1837 William Howley was Archbishop of Canterbury, not a Wilding.

Page 18. Quincy Jones, now he is interesting. Forget the Lanier family :-) He descends from Edward I, King of England, St. Louis IX, King of France, crusader Robert de Quincy, William the Conqueror, Charlemagne. Where did colour enter the tree of Quincy Jones, in regards to his descent from the Lanier family?

Page 20. In the tree connecting Tennessee Williams to Quincy Jones is shown his grandfather Thomas Lanier Williams, son of Colonel Joseph Williams and Rebecca Lanier. In an other source I found these parents to be John Williams and Rhoda C. Morgan. I guess someone missed out a generation. Can you check this?

Page 26. Glenn Ford claims a descent from President Martin Van Buren. He should complain as he is not recorded in Burke's Guide to American Presidents which records their descendants as well.

Page 27. Judy Garland 1922-1969 a first cousin of Ulysses Grant 1822-1885??? Come on!!!

Page 31 in the introduction Bela Lugosi played one of Prince Charles's most infamous ancestors...Prince Charles is descended from Vlad Dracula. This is not correct! He is not a descendant. You quite correctly show that he is a descendant of a (half-) brother of Vlad. Wrong unfair term in this case, he is not descended from Vlad.

Page 39 Michael Douglas family tee. Please check who are the parents of Nicholas Bayard, Mayor of New York. I presume you swapped places for him with his wife.

Page 41 Charles Coburn is directly descended from Roger Williams. Again I doubt it, wrong term. He may be a descendant but not a direct (in the male line) descendant.

Page 48 Humphrey Bogart is also descended from Malcolm II, King of Scots, Alfred the Great and Charlemagne.

Page 49 Tree for Hugh Hefner. Have you swapped places again for Hugh's parents?

Page 51 Priscilla Mullins is also ancestor of John Adams, 2nd President; John Quincy Adams, 6th President and also Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

Page 53 Brooke Shields entry. Lucrezia Borgia is continually maligned but she did not have sex with her father or her brothers Juan or Cesare.

Page 54. Glenn Close is a descendant of John Strong who is also an ancestor of spy Nathan Hale, J.P.Morgan, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lady Diana Spencer and Brooke Shields.

Page 55 Rachel Ward is not a daughter of any Earl of Dudley, she is a granddaughter. She also descends from King Charles II ans so William the Conqueror, Charlemagne, Robert teh Bruce, just too many to mention.

Page 55. Rene Auberjonois played Faterh Mulcahy.

Page 57. Gloria Grahame is either a descendant or an indirect descendant of Edward III, Gloria Grahame's paternal line are not Plantagenets. She also descends from Sir John Hawkwood, William the Conqueror and Charlemagne.

Page 57 Joanne Woodward, has a remarkable ancestry, descending from Charlemagne.....so do Steve McQueen, Paul Peterson, Anthony Perkins, Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Gepburn, just to mention a few.

Page 58, the tree, the first three generations are wrong (see my website to see what it should be).

Page 60. John D. Rockefeller cousin of Elizabeth I? Who is not a cousin? Recent research believes him to be a descendant of Henry VIII and William teh Conqueror and Charlemagne.

Page 60 Basil Rathbone's mother descends from Henry IV? How? I could not find any indication if Ruvigny's blood royal (not an easy book to find things in).

Page 61 Richard Nixon no longer is regarded to be a descendant of Edward III.

Page 61 Burt Lancaster descending from the House of Lancaster? Just because the name is the same?

Page 65. Shelley Winters, do you know the links from her to Katharine Schratt?

Page 68. David Van Cortlandt Crosby is also a descendant of Robert II, King of Scots, Robert the Bruce, William the Conqueror and Charlemagne.

Page 72 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, descends from James II, King of Scots, Edward III, king of England, William the Conqueror and Charlemagne. And also from the following Mayflower passengers, Mary Allerton, John Howland, Elizabeth Tilley, Richard Warren, Isaac Allerton, Mary Norris, Degory Priest, John Cooke and Francis Cooke

As a last on page 130, Erroll Flynn is not a descendant of Fletcher Christian. Erroll Flynn descends from Edward 'Ned'Young and John Adams, two other mutineers.

In fact I had only gone as far as page 72 in detail as it was becoming too much.

Robert Davenport supplied a Po Box address in Beverly Hills, California, but sadly I have not heard from him. I still think the book is fun but it could be so much better.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Gjest

Re: An Americans muddle with genealogy

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 mar 2005 00:55:42

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Page 1. William Christopher "who played Father Mulcahy on the
long-running television series M*A*S*H." On page 55 it is recorded that

Rene Auberjonois played that role.

Rene Auberjonois did play Father Mulcahey in the movie MASH, but not
the TV series.

Page 20. In the tree connecting Tennessee Williams to Quincy Jones is
shown his grandfather Thomas Lanier Williams, son of Colonel Joseph

Williams and Rebecca Lanier. In an other source I found these parents
to be John Williams and Rhoda C. Morgan. I guess someone missed out a
generation. Can you check this?

Thomas Lanier Williams was the son of of John Williams, Jr. and Rhoda
Campbell Morgan; grandson of John Williams and Malinda White;
great-grandson of Joseph Williams and Rebecca Lanier. See p. 167-168
of Notable Kin, Volume II by Gary Boyd Roberts.

How do people like that get a book published?? I'll be interested if
he replies to you. You are a Genealogist (capital G) and he is not. I
fear you two will be speaking different languages.

R. Battle

Re: An Americans muddle with genealogy

Legg inn av R. Battle » 19 mar 2005 01:20:49

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Leo van de Pas wrote:
<snip>
Page 16. Michael Wilding descends from John of Gaunt? How? "He was a
direct descendant of the archbishop of Canterbury who crowned Queen
Victoria." Direct descendant? Or an indirect descendant? I understand a
person is a descendant (or ancestor) or not. By using the word direct it
seems to imply a full male line of descent. In 1837 William Howley was
Archbishop of Canterbury, not a Wilding.
snip
Page 41 Charles Coburn is directly descended from Roger Williams. Again
I doubt it, wrong term. He may be a descendant but not a direct (in the
male line) descendant.
snip


The term "direct descendant" refers to what we would think of as an actual
descendant, as opposed to something like a "collateral descendant." It is
certainly redundant if the proper terms are used, but it does not refer
solely to the male line (which would be a "male-line" or "agnatic"). It
seems that this author is using the term "descendant" more loosely than we
would like and so needs the "direct" to distinguish actual ancestors from
mere relatives.

-Robert Battle

D. Spencer Hines

Lanier Genealogy

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 mar 2005 01:21:01

What are the specifics on this alleged Lanier line for Quincy Jones?

DSH

| > Page 20. In the tree connecting Tennessee Williams to Quincy Jones
is
| shown his grandfather Thomas Lanier Williams, son of Colonel Joseph
| Williams and Rebecca Lanier. In an other source I found these parents
| to be John Williams and Rhoda C. Morgan. I guess someone missed out a
| generation. Can you check this?
|
| Thomas Lanier Williams was the son of of John Williams, Jr. and Rhoda
| Campbell Morgan; grandson of John Williams and Malinda White;
| great-grandson of Joseph Williams and Rebecca Lanier. See p. 167-168
| of Notable Kin, Volume II by Gary Boyd Roberts.

Tony Hoskins

Re: An Americans muddle with genealogy

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 19 mar 2005 01:51:01

Actually, "direct descendant" was a phrase often used in the past,
implying (correctly, at least at that time) that one could "descend"
from a person collaterally. In other words, in common parlance one might
have been considered a "descendant" of one's g-g-g- aunt, though not, of
course, a "direct descendant".

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Tony Hoskins

Re: An Americans muddle with genealogy

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 19 mar 2005 02:11:01

Speaking of muddled Americans! Please allow me to correct my error. What
I should have said:

Actually, the word "descendant" was often in the past used to indicate
that one could "descend" from a person collaterally. In other words, in
common parlance one might have been considered a "descendant" of one's
g-g-g- aunt, though not, of course, a "direct descendant".



Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Gjest

Re: An Americans muddle with genealogy

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 mar 2005 03:41:01

Hines is right, and I argued with him about this at one time.

You cannot be a descendant of an aunt or uncle, or any of the great aunts or
uncles regardless of how many greats. You can only be "descended" from your
parents through their parents and through their parents, etc.

The phrase "direct descendant" is redundant in that you can ONLY be a
"direct" descendant. All other persons are your relatives all the way back to
Adam, or Odin, or whoever, but your are not their descendant, direct or
otherwise, and such persons are not your ancestors.

Thank you kindly for the time.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

Ginny Wagner

Brittany charter signatures

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 19 mar 2005 05:31:03

I've several questions I could really use some help with:

Have a charter from Brittany, le Tanniere on the frontier of Normandy. It
grants a chapel, land, tithes, etc. to the monastery of Mount St. Michael
near Avranches ca. 1128AD.

Near the bottom of the charter is "Actum tempore Domini Honorii Papae, et
Ildeberti Turonensis Metropolitani, et Ludovici Francorum Regis, Fulconis
Andegavorum Comitis, et Gaufridi ejus filii itidem Andegavorum et
Caenomanensium Comitis."

My question is whether or not this means the pope, Hildebert, Louis VI,
Fulk, and Geoffrey Plantanganet were all there to sign or if it was common
practice to mention them all whenever handling a transaction and someone
else just signed for them?

Also, there is a 'Signum Jordani, generi ejus' who signed which my Latin
translator says is a brother-in-law of the preceding William. This is the
first time I saw Jordani used as a name -- is that name fairly commonplace?

Also, can anyone say what relict means? Using context I'd guess either
widow or divorced wife. Latin translator doesn't say.

Thanks for any help in understanding these charters that anyone can/will
give. I'll be glad to give the full version of the charter if that would
help.

Best,
Ginny Wagner

Peter Stewart

Re: Brittany charter signatures

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 mar 2005 06:57:30

""Ginny Wagner"" <ginnywagner@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GCEILMENLHOGHNKOOPOOAEPPEMAA.ginnywagner@austin.rr.com...
I've several questions I could really use some help with:

Have a charter from Brittany, le Tanniere on the frontier of Normandy. It
grants a chapel, land, tithes, etc. to the monastery of Mount St. Michael
near Avranches ca. 1128AD.

Near the bottom of the charter is "Actum tempore Domini Honorii Papae, et
Ildeberti Turonensis Metropolitani, et Ludovici Francorum Regis, Fulconis
Andegavorum Comitis, et Gaufridi ejus filii itidem Andegavorum et
Caenomanensium Comitis."

My question is whether or not this means the pope, Hildebert, Louis VI,
Fulk, and Geoffrey Plantanganet were all there to sign or if it was common
practice to mention them all whenever handling a transaction and someone
else just signed for them?

This is just a method of dating the transaction, in this case somewhat more
exhaustively than usual - it simply means that the charter was given during
the time these individuals were simultaneously pope, bishop, king & count,
but not that any of them was actually present on the occasion or represented
in the business at hand in any way.

Also, there is a 'Signum Jordani, generi ejus' who signed which my Latin
translator says is a brother-in-law of the preceding William. This is the
first time I saw Jordani used as a name -- is that name fairly
commonplace?

This is the genitive form of Jordan, a name that became popular with the
Crusades, especially for children who were born in Palestine and baptised in
the Jordan or with water taken from the river. "Generi" is the genitive of
"gener" meaning, normally, son-in-law, although this word could also be used
for a brother-in-law, and the translator presumably knew from other
evidence - in the same document or elsewhere - that this was the
relationship specified.

Also, can anyone say what relict means? Using context I'd guess either
widow or divorced wife. Latin translator doesn't say.

Is this word used in the Latin or just in the translation? "Relict" in
English means widow, as can "relicta" in Latin - however, this is a
participle from "relinquo" and can mean anything (feminine, in this form)
that has been left behind. If the context requires a person, it could
indicate either a widow (more usually "vidua", meaning the bereaved) or
perhaps a deserted wife or one whose husband had left (for example, on
Crusade) and/or disappeared without trace.

Peter Stewart

Doug McDonald

Re: An Americans muddle with genealogy

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 19 mar 2005 19:03:07

Leo van de Pas wrote:

I was loaned a delightful book "Roots of the Rich and Famous", by Robert R. Davenport.


You get (or got) this book "free" if you join one of the Internet
for-pay genealogy sites, or maybe it comes with some other offer.


I got it that way and nearly choked on my dinner when looking
in it.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald

Re: An Americans muddle with genealogy

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 19 mar 2005 19:05:22

GRHaleJr@aol.com wrote:

Hines is right, and I argued with him about this at one time.

You cannot be a descendant of an aunt or uncle, or any of the great aunts or
uncles regardless of how many greats.

Sure you can. You can even be a descendant of your wife ..
ask Oedipus.

Doug McDonald

D. Spencer Hines

"Roots Of The Rich And Famous" -- Robert R. Davenport.

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 mar 2005 19:20:02

It sounds as if it is absolutely riddled with errors.

Who is this Davenport guy?

DSH

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:d1hpgt$t12$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

| Leo van de Pas wrote:
|
| > I was loaned a delightful book "Roots of the Rich and Famous", by
Robert R. Davenport.
|
| You get (or got) this book "free" if you join one of the Internet
| for-pay genealogy sites, or maybe it comes with some other offer.
|
|
| I got it that way and nearly choked on my dinner when looking
| in it.
|
| Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald

Re: "Roots Of The Rich And Famous" -- Robert R. Davenport.

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 19 mar 2005 23:55:53

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
It sounds as if it is absolutely riddled with errors.

Who is this Davenport guy?
Robert Davenport is an accomplished author and screenwriter.

From a quick Google search:

***********************************************************

"His books include Roots of the Rich and Famous, The Rich and Famous
Baby Name Book, The Celebrity Birthday Book, Pets' Names of the Rich and
Famous, The Celebrity Almanac and The Hereditary Society Blue Book.

Where does Mr. Davenport unearth these celebrity geneaological
relationships? Some come from interviews with the celebrities
themselves, and their families; others are the result of his own
research. Other family connections come to him from professional and
amateur geneaologists around the country who know of his mania for
collecting the roots of the rich and famous.

........


He lives in Los Angeles and works as a screenwriter."

***********************************************************

Oh my. I think that explains it! "Screenwriter".

Doug McDonald

Gjest

Re: "Roots Of The Rich And Famous" -- Robert R. Davenport.

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 mar 2005 01:28:23

He's not so successful at it evidently. The Internet Movie Database
lists but one credit to him: Slimer and the Real Ghostbusters, a TV
series that ran from 1988-1990.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: "Roots Of The Rich And Famous" -- Robert R. Davenport.

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 mar 2005 02:01:01

Hmmmmmm...

Yes that could certainly explain why he grinds out Junk Genealogy for
the Unwashed Mass Market.

"SLIMER", Aye.

DSH

<mhollick@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1111278503.853298.171990@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

| He's not so successful at it evidently. The Internet Movie Database
| lists but one credit to him: Slimer and the Real Ghostbusters, a TV
| series that ran from 1988-1990.

Gjest

Re: "Roots Of The Rich And Famous" -- Robert R. Davenport.

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 mar 2005 07:39:20

Actually I think the "Los Angeles" part may explain it!

Renia

Re: An Americans muddle with genealogy

Legg inn av Renia » 01 apr 2005 11:51:29

GRHaleJr@aol.com wrote:

Hines is right, and I argued with him about this at one time.

You cannot be a descendant of an aunt or uncle, or any of the great aunts or
uncles regardless of how many greats. You can only be "descended" from your
parents through their parents and through their parents, etc.

The phrase "direct descendant" is redundant in that you can ONLY be a
"direct" descendant. All other persons are your relatives all the way back to
Adam, or Odin, or whoever, but your are not their descendant, direct or
otherwise, and such persons are not your ancestors.

Thank you kindly for the time.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas


I know you have all been arguing about this, and I'm a bit late into the
fray, but the term "direct descendant" certainly is and has been a term
used in Britain (often among the upper classes) to denote a parent-child
lineage, as opposed to a general cousinship with an "ancestor" from whom
one is not directly descended. In other words, the word "ancestors" can
include siblings and close cousins of those from whom one is a direct
descendant.

Renia

brit am

Re: An Americans muddle with genealogy

Legg inn av brit am » 06 apr 2005 03:16:10

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:d2j8uk$lgi$2@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
GRHaleJr@aol.com wrote:

Hines is right, and I argued with him about this at one time. You cannot
be a descendant of an aunt or uncle, or any of the great aunts or uncles
regardless of how many greats. You can only be "descended" from your
parents through their parents and through their parents, etc. The phrase
"direct descendant" is redundant in that you can ONLY be a "direct"
descendant. All other persons are your relatives all the way back to
Adam, or Odin, or whoever, but your are not their descendant, direct or
otherwise, and such persons are not your ancestors. Thank you kindly for
the time.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas


I know you have all been arguing about this, and I'm a bit late into the
fray, but the term "direct descendant" certainly is and has been a term
used in Britain (often among the upper classes) to denote a parent-child
lineage, as opposed to a general cousinship with an "ancestor" from whom
one is not directly descended. In other words, the word "ancestors" can
include siblings and close cousins of those from whom one is a direct
descendant.

Renia

'Direct descendant' is parent-child etc. 'Collateral descendant' is from
aunts and uncles, etc.

Renia

Re: An Americans muddle with genealogy

Legg inn av Renia » 06 apr 2005 06:50:43

brit am wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:d2j8uk$lgi$2@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...

GRHaleJr@aol.com wrote:


Hines is right, and I argued with him about this at one time. You cannot
be a descendant of an aunt or uncle, or any of the great aunts or uncles
regardless of how many greats. You can only be "descended" from your
parents through their parents and through their parents, etc. The phrase
"direct descendant" is redundant in that you can ONLY be a "direct"
descendant. All other persons are your relatives all the way back to
Adam, or Odin, or whoever, but your are not their descendant, direct or
otherwise, and such persons are not your ancestors. Thank you kindly for
the time.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas


I know you have all been arguing about this, and I'm a bit late into the
fray, but the term "direct descendant" certainly is and has been a term
used in Britain (often among the upper classes) to denote a parent-child
lineage, as opposed to a general cousinship with an "ancestor" from whom
one is not directly descended. In other words, the word "ancestors" can
include siblings and close cousins of those from whom one is a direct
descendant.

Renia


'Direct descendant' is parent-child etc. 'Collateral descendant' is from
aunts and uncles, etc.

Yes, but whereas "direct descendant" is and has been in general usage,
"collateral descendant" has not. The general term for "collateral
descendant" has been, simply, "descendant", which is the point I was
trying to make, above.

Renia

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»