Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 10 aug 2005 11:11:02

Genealogics has been updated http://www.genealogics.org


I have been experimenting with Gateway Ancestors and I am not happy with the way it at present is available. It works but not the way I would like it to be :-(

If you go to Text Search and in Search Occupation you enter +USA you will get those
to the USA. If you enter just Gateway Ancestor you will also get those to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and Jamaica.

At this very moment I am printing 33 pages with all these Gateway Ancestors as I intend to change their searchable entry, to make it easier and more straight forward.

I intend to change the term for Australia and New Zealand to Pioneer, as I feel Gateway applies so much to the New World, whereas Australia and New Zealand surely are the Newer World :-) and in both cases I am dropping the word Ancestor.

What do you think?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia (where it has been snowing today! Not seen by me before :-)

norenxaq

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av norenxaq » 10 aug 2005 19:24:01

Leo van de Pas wrote:

Genealogics has been updated http://www.genealogics.org

I have been experimenting with Gateway Ancestors and I am not happy with the way it at present is available. It works but not the way I would like it to be :-(

If you go to Text Search and in Search Occupation you enter +USA you will get those
to the USA. If you enter just Gateway Ancestor you will also get those to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and Jamaica.

At this very moment I am printing 33 pages with all these Gateway Ancestors as I intend to change their searchable entry, to make it easier and more straight forward.

I intend to change the term for Australia and New Zealand to Pioneer, as I feel Gateway applies so much to the New World, whereas Australia and New Zealand surely are the Newer World :-) and in both cases I am dropping the word Ancestor.

What do you think?

it might be easier to use the same term regardless of where the ancestor arrived

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 11 aug 2005 02:23:01

I think it might be a great idea Leo..... except....
I come down from pioneer ancestors on both sides of my family, and this is
the way they have always been described.
However my only "gateway ancestor" was not an Australian pioneer, but an
American, Gen. James Cudworth, the ancestor of one of my Australian pioneer
ancestors.
It has been my understanding that a gateway ancestor was one who had a
direct and proven link back to royal and noble medieval ancestors, and so
different from a pioneer.
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia

-------Original Message-------

From: Leo van de Pas
Date: 08/10/05 18:40:28
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Genealogics has been updated http://www.genealogics.org


I have been experimenting with Gateway Ancestors and I am not happy with the
way it at present is available. It works but not the way I would like it to
be :-(

If you go to Text Search and in Search Occupation you enter +USA you
will get those
to the USA. If you enter just Gateway Ancestor you will also get those
to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and Jamaica.

At this very moment I am printing 33 pages with all these Gateway Ancestors
as I intend to change their searchable entry, to make it easier and more
straight forward.

I intend to change the term for Australia and New Zealand to Pioneer, as I
feel Gateway applies so much to the New World, whereas Australia and New
Zealand surely are the Newer World :-) and in both cases I am dropping the
word Ancestor.

What do you think?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia (where it has been snowing today! Not seen by me before
:-)

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 11 aug 2005 02:59:57

In article <42FA37B5.F8470F70@san.rr.com>,
norenxaq@san.rr.com (norenxaq) wrote:

I intend to change the term for Australia and New Zealand to Pioneer, as I
feel Gateway applies so much to the New World, whereas Australia and New
Zealand surely are the Newer World :-) and in both cases I am dropping the
word Ancestor.

What do you think?

it might be easier to use the same term regardless of where the ancestor
arrived

I think Leo is seeking too restrict the use of the word to a specific
kind of 'gateway', which I think has a defensible broader definition: a
'gateway' is any person who brings traceable ancestry from one group
into another, distinct group. In traditional, endogamous communities
(those in which marriage or procreation partners tend to come from the
same group), gateways of any sort are the exception rather than the
norm--for example, a Spaniard marrying into the English gentry (e.g.
Sancha de Ayala), or someone within the English class system marrying
significantly 'up' or 'down'. Among the set of first-generation
European settlers in a colony (Australia, North America, etc.), one
can't really speak of social or geographic endogamy in the population
since the whole first-generation population may have come from diverse
locations and may have experienced significant socio-economic shuffling.
In this case, then, 'gateway' distinguishes the small minority of
immigrants with extensive traceable ancestry (which must mean noble,
depending on one's threshold for 'extensive') from the vast majority
whose origins cannot be traced. I would not reserve the term
exclusively for immigrants to a specific place with traceable royal
ancestry--though this is a significant and interesting type of gateway.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Leo van de Pas

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 11 aug 2005 03:04:01

For me a Gateway Ancestor is a person (with or without Royal Ancestors) who left Europe (roughly before 1700) who went to America. America North and South.

To make a distinction between people just because one has royal ancestors and the other not, I think is not fair. What if you have a couple, he has royal ancestors and she not? I think it was courages and special to leave a familiar world behind and start in a new world, and all should be recognised.

With Australia and New Zealand it is different. Here people from Europe started arriving much later. In Western Australia they started in 1829, a generation or so later than the other side of Australia.

To differentiate between Gateway and Pioneer ancestors is really only semantics, but it helps if you look for one you are not swamped with the other----I should have thought of that before :-)

However, I have made extra work for myself but I have only myself to blame.
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: Merilyn Pedrick
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com ; Leo van de Pas
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed


I think it might be a great idea Leo..... except....
I come down from pioneer ancestors on both sides of my family, and this is the way they have always been described.
However my only "gateway ancestor" was not an Australian pioneer, but an American, Gen. James Cudworth, the ancestor of one of my Australian pioneer ancestors.
It has been my understanding that a gateway ancestor was one who had a direct and proven link back to royal and noble medieval ancestors, and so different from a pioneer.
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia

-------Original Message-------

From: Leo van de Pas
Date: 08/10/05 18:40:28
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Genealogics has been updated http://www.genealogics.org


I have been experimenting with Gateway Ancestors and I am not happy with the way it at present is available. It works but not the way I would like it to be :-(

If you go to Text Search and in Search Occupation you enter +USA you will get those
to the USA. If you enter just Gateway Ancestor you will also get those to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and Jamaica.

At this very moment I am printing 33 pages with all these Gateway Ancestors as I intend to change their searchable entry, to make it easier and more straight forward.

I intend to change the term for Australia and New Zealand to Pioneer, as I feel Gateway applies so much to the New World, whereas Australia and New Zealand surely are the Newer World :-) and in both cases I am dropping the word Ancestor.

What do you think?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia (where it has been snowing today! Not seen by me before :-)



_____________________________________________________________________
FREE Emoticons for your email! Click Here!

Leo van de Pas

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 11 aug 2005 05:16:02

Many thanks Nat for this.

I see Gateway and Pioneer ancestors as those who left one recognisable world
behind and went to be involved in creating a new one. That is why I do not
see people like Sancha de Ayala as a "gateway" person, as she went from one
established society to another. If she would be qualified then all those
royal brides would qualify as well.

I understand that many people in the USA attach 'royal ancestry" to a
Gateway Ancestor but I'd rather see how special all those individuals were,
why single out only one from the Mayflower?

I think the restriction to those before a specific year is fair enough, as
later on more and more people would fall into that category.

Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed


In article <42FA37B5.F8470F70@san.rr.com>,
norenxaq@san.rr.com (norenxaq) wrote:

I intend to change the term for Australia and New Zealand to Pioneer,
as I
feel Gateway applies so much to the New World, whereas Australia and
New
Zealand surely are the Newer World :-) and in both cases I am dropping
the
word Ancestor.

What do you think?

it might be easier to use the same term regardless of where the ancestor
arrived

I think Leo is seeking too restrict the use of the word to a specific
kind of 'gateway', which I think has a defensible broader definition: a
'gateway' is any person who brings traceable ancestry from one group
into another, distinct group. In traditional, endogamous communities
(those in which marriage or procreation partners tend to come from the
same group), gateways of any sort are the exception rather than the
norm--for example, a Spaniard marrying into the English gentry (e.g.
Sancha de Ayala), or someone within the English class system marrying
significantly 'up' or 'down'. Among the set of first-generation
European settlers in a colony (Australia, North America, etc.), one
can't really speak of social or geographic endogamy in the population
since the whole first-generation population may have come from diverse
locations and may have experienced significant socio-economic shuffling.
In this case, then, 'gateway' distinguishes the small minority of
immigrants with extensive traceable ancestry (which must mean noble,
depending on one's threshold for 'extensive') from the vast majority
whose origins cannot be traced. I would not reserve the term
exclusively for immigrants to a specific place with traceable royal
ancestry--though this is a significant and interesting type of gateway.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm


D. Spencer Hines

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 aug 2005 05:44:01

Gateway Ancestors are not Gateway Ancestors of Royal Descent -- GARD's.

DSH

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 11 aug 2005 11:01:02

I didn't mean my reply to sound snobbish!
Nat Taylor expressed much more elegantly in his reply what I was trying to
say.
Surely a pioneer would be the first one in a persons' family to come to a
new world country in the early days of settlement, and a gateway ancestor
opens the gate to a new bunch of ancestors.
Merilyn

-------Original Message-------

From: Leo van de Pas
Date: 08/11/05 10:33:43
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

For me a Gateway Ancestor is a person (with or without Royal Ancestors) who
left Europe (roughly before 1700) who went to America. America North and
South.

To make a distinction between people just because one has royal ancestors
and the other not, I think is not fair. What if you have a couple, he has
royal ancestors and she not? I think it was courages and special to leave a
familiar world behind and start in a new world, and all should be recognised


With Australia and New Zealand it is different. Here people from Europe
started arriving much later. In Western Australia they started in 1829, a
generation or so later than the other side of Australia.

To differentiate between Gateway and Pioneer ancestors is really only
semantics, but it helps if you look for one you are not swamped with the
other----I should have thought of that before :-)

However, I have made extra work for myself but I have only myself to blame.
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: Merilyn Pedrick
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com ; Leo van de Pas
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed


I think it might be a great idea Leo..... except....
I come down from pioneer ancestors on both sides of my family, and
this is the way they have always been described.
However my only "gateway ancestor" was not an Australian pioneer,
but an American, Gen. James Cudworth, the ancestor of one of my Australian
pioneer ancestors.
It has been my understanding that a gateway ancestor was one who had
a direct and proven link back to royal and noble medieval ancestors, and so
different from a pioneer.
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia

-------Original Message-------

From: Leo van de Pas
Date: 08/10/05 18:40:28
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Genealogics has been updated http://www.genealogics.org


I have been experimenting with Gateway Ancestors and I am not happy
with the way it at present is available. It works but not the way I would
like it to be :-(

If you go to Text Search and in Search Occupation you enter +USA
you will get those
to the USA. If you enter just Gateway Ancestor you will also get
those to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and Jamaica.

At this very moment I am printing 33 pages with all these Gateway
Ancestors as I intend to change their searchable entry, to make it easier
and more straight forward.

I intend to change the term for Australia and New Zealand to Pioneer
as I feel Gateway applies so much to the New World, whereas Australia and
New Zealand surely are the Newer World :-) and in both cases I am dropping
the word Ancestor.

What do you think?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia (where it has been snowing today! Not seen by me
before :-)



_____________________________________________________________________
FREE Emoticons for your email! Click Here!

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 11 aug 2005 12:51:42

In article <015001c59e1c$8988e450$0300a8c0@Toshiba>,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas") wrote:

I see Gateway and Pioneer ancestors as those who left one recognisable world
behind and went to be involved in creating a new one. That is why I do not
see people like Sancha de Ayala as a "gateway" person, as she went from one
established society to another. If she would be qualified then all those
royal brides would qualify as well.

I understand that many people in the USA attach 'royal ancestry" to a
Gateway Ancestor but I'd rather see how special all those individuals were,
why single out only one from the Mayflower?

I think the restriction to those before a specific year is fair enough, as
later on more and more people would fall into that category.

I think it's best to distinguish two categories: immigrant ancestors, or
pioneers, on one hand--those who are first-generation settlers in a new
environment; this includes all the 'Mayflower' passengers and the
Australian convicts. But only a few of those are also
'gateways'--persons who have traceable ancestry to which their
descendants can connect (and you are right, only one from the
Mayflower--so far). Being a 'gateway' is simply a piece of
geneaological trivia rather than a personal accomplishment. And as we
know, origins of settlers continue to be discovered, so an immigrant who
is not currently a 'gateway' can certainly become one.

If you are in the business of flagging people in a genealogical
database, why not use two separate flags, since these are two separate
distinctions?

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Doug McDonald

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 11 aug 2005 14:35:15

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Gateway Ancestors are not Gateway Ancestors of Royal Descent -- GARD's.

DSH

That's right. I've always thought of them as gates between something
interesting on the Old World side, like my Fitzhugh antestors
(maltsters, drapers, and mayors) or my Latham ancestors (falconers to
teh King) even if not royal descent, and lots of people on the
New World side. If either side peters out rapidly, (on the Old World
side just the info peters out, of course), they they are noty real
"gateways".

Doug McDonald

Denis Beauregard

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Denis Beauregard » 11 aug 2005 16:11:07

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:51:42 GMT, Nathaniel Taylor
<nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

If you are in the business of flagging people in a genealogical
database, why not use two separate flags, since these are two separate
distinctions?

As I see it, it is important to identify the incomers. "pioneer" can
be misleading.

In Quebec, for example, there is an estimate of 30,000 immigrants from
Europe during the French regime (1608 to 1763). About 20,000 never
married and of the other 10,000, about 4,000 men and 1,000 women have
descendants today. Some people have unknown origin and it is
important to flag them, in particular when someone else has the same
family name.

So, what do we have ?

How many pioneers ? the 5,000 with descendants or the 30,000 who came
at this time, or the half of them who cam say before the 1700s ?

And how many gateways ? The 1,000 to 1,500 with some proof of foreign
origin (some foreign record with their name), the 100s with at least
2 foreign generations (known grand-parents), or at least 3, including
or not the commoners (my own Beauregard line has 8 generations in
France with only commoners).

Or shall I count gateways as those coming from overseas, i.e. in my
own Rising line, the Josiah Risaing brought in Quebec as a captive, or
his own ancestors who came to New England ? In one case, one Otis
line, I found a royal descendant among the ancestors of the captive.

And if we define "pioneers" as first settlers of an area, then let's
see how the land was conquered. During the French regime, most
populated places were along the St.Lawrence river and Richelieu
river with seigneuries. When the English took the control, the
first step was to take the control of the economy, so the first
English immigrants were not pioneers as they settled in already
populated places. Only after about 20 or 30 years, English begun
massive immigration to try to drown the French population by English
and protestant immigrants, but the new migrants got new lands, located
near the US border, where they were actual pioneers. And in the 1860s
or later in the 1910s, new vast areas were populated so you may have
an ancestry line with someone getting in the French colony in 1630
(so, a pioneer of New France), his son settling in a newly settled
place in 1670 (so, a pioneer of that place), his son to Detroit
(settled from 1700), his son and grand-son back to Quebec in Montreal
(so, 2 generations were not pioneers), the next son pioneering
St-Hyacinthe, the next son pioneering Granby, the next son pioneering
the Pontiac area, the next son pioneering Temiscaming, the next son
pioneering Abitibi. You see the pattern ? In most of the line, we
have pioneers, i.e. someone arriving in a wild land and having to
build every thing.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard - Les Français d'Amérique
/\/ http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1711
/ | http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
oo oo Mon association de généalogie: http://www.sgcf.com

Denis Beauregard

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Denis Beauregard » 11 aug 2005 18:57:41

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:03:45 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com wrote in
soc.genealogy.medieval:

In a message dated 8/11/2005 8:11:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
no@nospam.com.invalid writes:


In Quebec, for example, there is an estimate of 30,000 immigrants from
Europe during the French regime (1608 to 1763). About 20,000 never
married and of the other 10,000,

Two-thirds of the Quebecois immigrants never married ?
Was it something in the water?

30,000 is an estimate. That 20,000 includes those who returned to
France where they can be married. Also, I presume this figure
include the sailormen, the soldiers, etc. which I would consider
as tourists for most of them and not as immigrants.

I don't know on which basis someone got that figure of 30,000 in all.
For those married, because they were in couple, it is a lot easier to
identify them. The singles, on the other hand, rarely appear in the
vital records (they are not married, so no wedding and no baptism of
children). I presume some of them can be found quite fast by checking
the witness to the records that are not otherwise identified, the
hired persons, the burials, etc. But thus far, I know no reference
list for them (while there are reference lists for married ones).
Maybe I can begin to work slowly on that...


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard - Les Français d'Amérique
/\/ http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1711
/ | http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
oo oo Mon association de généalogie: http://www.sgcf.com

Gjest

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 aug 2005 19:05:02

In a message dated 8/11/2005 8:11:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
no@nospam.com.invalid writes:


In Quebec, for example, there is an estimate of 30,000 immigrants from
Europe during the French regime (1608 to 1763). About 20,000 never
married and of the other 10,000,

Two-thirds of the Quebecois immigrants never married ?
Was it something in the water?
Will

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 aug 2005 19:12:01

Not enough eligible women for them to marry.

DSH

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1f1.4187306c.302cdee5@aol.com...

| In a message dated 8/11/2005 8:11:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
| no@nospam.com.invalid writes:
|
|
| > In Quebec, for example, there is an estimate of 30,000 immigrants
from
| > Europe during the French regime (1608 to 1763). About 20,000 never
| > married and of the other 10,000,
|
| Two-thirds of the Quebecois immigrants never married ?
| Was it something in the water?
| Will

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 aug 2005 19:14:01

Whatever terminology we use it is important to preserve the distinction
between Gateway Ancestors and Gateway Ancestors of Royal Descent --
GARD's.

DSH

Denis Beauregard

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Denis Beauregard » 11 aug 2005 23:26:40

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:58:48 +0000 (UTC), leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
("Leo van de Pas") wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

Wow, the discussion is becoming more and more interesting as all kinds of
other issues are being mentioned. I think every now and then it is good to
go over "supposedly" well trodden aspects.

What I am formulating from these remarks is that I want to make a difference
between people who went to America (North and South) and those who went to
Australia, New Zealand (and South Africa and where else?). Then within these
groups I should try to make a distinction between those with and those
without Royal Ancestors. Anyone willing to suggest how that should be done?
Should I say, as an example Gateway for those without and Gateway RA
for those with royal ancestors? The good part is that when searching,
asking for Gateway would produce both.

I have made a start separating Gateways to America from Pioneers to
Australia and New Zealand. I know and appreciate that Gateways can also be
described as Pioneers, but I do want a difference between those two areas.

You have 2 solutions: 1- is to use the notes and some keywords to
discrimate, or 2- to add more columns to your database or some
automatism in the search engine.

Keywords is the easy solution when you have no access to code. But
you can "invent" keywords. For example, gatewayaus for Australian
gateways, or ausgate (or pacgate, eastgate, etc.).


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard - Les Français d'Amérique
/\/ http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1711
/ | http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
oo oo Mon association de généalogie: http://www.sgcf.com

Leo van de Pas

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 12 aug 2005 00:00:01

Wow, the discussion is becoming more and more interesting as all kinds of
other issues are being mentioned. I think every now and then it is good to
go over "supposedly" well trodden aspects.

What I am formulating from these remarks is that I want to make a difference
between people who went to America (North and South) and those who went to
Australia, New Zealand (and South Africa and where else?). Then within these
groups I should try to make a distinction between those with and those
without Royal Ancestors. Anyone willing to suggest how that should be done?
Should I say, as an example Gateway for those without and Gateway RA
for those with royal ancestors? The good part is that when searching,
asking for Gateway would produce both.

I have made a start separating Gateways to America from Pioneers to
Australia and New Zealand. I know and appreciate that Gateways can also be
described as Pioneers, but I do want a difference between those two areas.

Any suggestions gratefully accepted.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed


In article <015001c59e1c$8988e450$0300a8c0@Toshiba>,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas") wrote:

I see Gateway and Pioneer ancestors as those who left one recognisable
world
behind and went to be involved in creating a new one. That is why I do
not
see people like Sancha de Ayala as a "gateway" person, as she went from
one
established society to another. If she would be qualified then all those
royal brides would qualify as well.

I understand that many people in the USA attach 'royal ancestry" to a
Gateway Ancestor but I'd rather see how special all those individuals
were,
why single out only one from the Mayflower?

I think the restriction to those before a specific year is fair enough,
as
later on more and more people would fall into that category.

I think it's best to distinguish two categories: immigrant ancestors, or
pioneers, on one hand--those who are first-generation settlers in a new
environment; this includes all the 'Mayflower' passengers and the
Australian convicts. But only a few of those are also
'gateways'--persons who have traceable ancestry to which their
descendants can connect (and you are right, only one from the
Mayflower--so far). Being a 'gateway' is simply a piece of
geneaological trivia rather than a personal accomplishment. And as we
know, origins of settlers continue to be discovered, so an immigrant who
is not currently a 'gateway' can certainly become one.

If you are in the business of flagging people in a genealogical
database, why not use two separate flags, since these are two separate
distinctions?

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm


Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 12 aug 2005 01:51:42

In article <000a01c59ebe$ee03d2d0$0300a8c0@Toshiba>,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas") wrote:

Wow, the discussion is becoming more and more interesting as all kinds of
other issues are being mentioned. I think every now and then it is good to
go over "supposedly" well trodden aspects.

What I am formulating from these remarks is that I want to make a difference
between people who went to America (North and South) and those who went to
Australia, New Zealand (and South Africa and where else?). Then within these
groups I should try to make a distinction between those with and those
without Royal Ancestors. Anyone willing to suggest how that should be done?
Should I say, as an example Gateway for those without and Gateway RA
for those with royal ancestors? The good part is that when searching,
asking for Gateway would produce both.

I have made a start separating Gateways to America from Pioneers to
Australia and New Zealand. I know and appreciate that Gateways can also be
described as Pioneers, but I do want a difference between those two areas.

Any suggestions gratefully accepted.
Leo

Leo, it depends on how your database is set up. Do you have the ability
to create an unlimited number of Boolean flag fields in your
database--both your own native version and in the DB placed online via
'The Next Generation'? You could use the flag 'immigrant' to flag
anyone in your database who is an immigrant to a colony (US or
Australia), and another flag for someone who presents a 'gateway' to
royal ancestry (or numerically or historically signficant non-royal
ancestry), and perhaps a small closed-choice field to distinguish
Australian immigrants from American, etc. (if place of death will not
suffice to distinguish them).

As for terminology, the issue of whether one should use the word
'immigrant' or 'emigrant' simply depends on the reader's (or compiler's)
point of view!

My simple table of my (and my wife's) 17th-century American immigrant
ancestors, bookmarked below, is an example of a list of immigrant
ancestors compiled by the placement of flags in a basic genealogical
database (though the list has many hand-made additions & modifications).
Only a handful of these immigrants are 'gateways' in the sense that they
bring traceable ancestry beyond a generation or two above them. I have
begun to expand the table to show which of these immigrants have known
parentage, marriages or places of residence before emigration, as well
as which of them are 'gateways' to 2 or more generations of further
ancestry, or have (demonstrable or possible) royal descents. But this
part of the table is unfinished, sincee some of those listed are
relatively fresh finds on whom I have not done even much secondary
reading, and because my own personal-ancestor database stops at the
Atlantic Ocean and for years I only haphazardly compiled information on
whether an immigrant's parentage or last English residence was known (a
weird choice for a medievalist with demonstrated medieval gateways in my
own ancestry, but when I decided on that policy I wanted to keep my
profession and my genealogical hobby distinct).

A couple of months ago I spoke with Robert C. Anderson, compiler of the
'Great Migration' prosopography of early 17th-century immigrants to New
England, asking what statistical work had been done on the percentage of
colonial immigrants whose parentage was known, etc. Bob said that he
has kept no current statistics based on his magnificent 'Great
Migration' volumes, but that he did write a piece on such statistics
some years ago, using older compiled sources. Calculating percentages
of immigrants with known origins. I expect that these percentages are
rising slowly but steadily as the IGI, National Burial Index, A2A, and
other accessible English resources continue to grow, allowing more
people to get into the 'English Origins' corner of the field and more
discoveries to be made.

Denis B's interesting comments about Quebec suggest that the quest for
origins of Quebecois immigrants has developed differently, and of course
it presents different problems. I would be interested to hear an
analogous overview of the Australian immigrant-ancestor field: where and
how are discoveries most fruitfully made, and what is the percentage of
known origins for members of different waves or cohorts of immigrants
(convict vs. non-convict; groups categorized by period, etc.); what is
the history of interest and research into this area; are there early
convict immigrants with known royal ancestries; etc.? And what about
other European colonies--e.g. Brazil?

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 12 aug 2005 03:26:39

Dear Leo,

Only a handful of these immigrants are 'gateways' in the sense that they
bring traceable ancestry beyond a generation or two above them.

-------------To me it is irrelevant whether a "gateway Ancestor" has parents
known, he/she is the gateway person, he/she is the one who came from country
A and went to country B. I think we should like to find first the
Gateway/Pioneer ancestor and only then see if they have parents.

There's already too much pointless semantics on this list, but I would
say again that the term 'gateway', as used by Sir A. R. Wagner and
others, in print for a good thirty years or more, now, has a specific
genealogical meaning: a sort of human conduit by which descendants can
trace ancestry from a particular group, ancestral to a particular
individual who procreates into a distinct population. Such people are
all 'migrants' of one form or another (from continent to continent, or
from caste to caste, etc.). But a person whose ancestry is unknown
fails to meet the original definition of gateway; your sentences above
appear to endow 'gateway' with a meaning it has not had in the
literature. Though both gateways and immigrants are significant, in
different ways (as you've eloquently explored), I would keep their
meanings distinct.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Leo van de Pas

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 12 aug 2005 03:51:01

See in between
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed


In article <000a01c59ebe$ee03d2d0$0300a8c0@Toshiba>,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas") wrote:
..


<snip>

Leo, it depends on how your database is set up. Do you have the ability
to create an unlimited number of Boolean flag fields in your
database--both your own native version and in the DB placed online via
'The Next Generation'?

-----In my own program written in DOS I have the possibility to create
separate areas for specific entries, but except for some, they are not
searchable in my own program.

I created one, called Occupation, which in my program is not searchable, but
Ian Fettes has made that one searchable on the Internet site. What I am
doing now is using it, not just for occupations (which are used, just try
actor, general and so on) but also for other aspects I want to be
searchable, like Knights of the Garter, Knights of the Golden Fleece, and
Gateway Ancestors and Pioneer Ancestors.

I have to "exploit" this entry for as many things as I can, as with this I
remain within the guidelines/possibilities of the program.

In my own program I have one searachable aspect (but only for individual
persons, not as a whole) and that is : does A have interesting ancestors or
descendants, and that makes life for me so much easier. That is where I find
the Gateway descendants of people.
Once I have such a list, I can search that list for keywords like Gateway,
or Genealogy which is how I find members of Gen-Med if they are on that
list.

You could use the flag 'immigrant' to flag
anyone in your database who is an immigrant to a colony (US or
Australia), and another flag for someone who presents a 'gateway' to
royal ancestry
--------I agree, BUT to make one flag for "different animals" gives another

technical problem......the website gives a maximum of 1000 responses. And by
dividing the kinds of responses I can be more complete in a response by
removing those obviously not wanted, like Australians in a list of American
migrants. I think the answer wanted is the names of migrants to America or
Australia, if I then can indicate those with royal ancestry that is then a
bonus.

(or numerically or historically signficant non-royal
ancestry), and perhaps a small closed-choice field to distinguish
Australian immigrants from American, etc. (if place of death will not
suffice to distinguish them).
------------The "answer list" does not give place names of death or birth

and so that does not stand out.
As for terminology, the issue of whether one should use the word
'immigrant' or 'emigrant' simply depends on the reader's (or compiler's)
point of view!
--------Again there are "kinds" of migrants. Someone like myself going to

another country is not significant and should (perhaps) not be searchable as
a group. But people in the early days were (I think) important as they were
the founders of a new society in a new world. I think those pioneering
people have to be admired. Life must have been dreadful. In England (say) a
father writes to tell a son in America that his mother has died, the news
can take six months to get there and by the time the son's reply reaches
England, the father could be dead as well or remarried and with another
child. Homesickness, missing relatives behind must have been dreadfull.

My simple table of my (and my wife's) 17th-century American immigrant
ancestors, bookmarked below,
------------------------I am going to study that!


is an example of a list of immigrant
ancestors compiled by the placement of flags in a basic genealogical
database (though the list has many hand-made additions & modifications).
Only a handful of these immigrants are 'gateways' in the sense that they
bring traceable ancestry beyond a generation or two above them.
-------------To me it is irrelevant whether a "gateway Ancestor" has parents

known, he/she is the gateway person, he/she is the one who came from country
A and went to country B. I think we should like to find first the
Gaterway/Pioneer ancestor and only then see if they have parents.

As America is a few generations "older" than Australia and New Zealand, I
think that because of that the interest in ancestors developed earlier in
America. Up until recently most Australians were too bussy establishing
themselves as Australian to worry about overseas ancestors. In the last
twenty years or so that has changed, but America has a head start of at
least a hundred years if not more.

America has been fortunate to have produced genealogy so much longer than
Australia and I wonder/doubt anyone, including myself, could produce a book
like Plantagenet Ancestry applying to Australia. One collection (small) I
would love to make is of Australian women married to or involved with
"interesting" people. For instance:
Dale Harper, Lady Tryon and friend of Prince Charles
Pat Richards, one wife of the 9th Earl of Jersey, and mistress of Joe
Kennedy Jr.
Mollee Little, likely mother of a child of the Duke of Windsor
Sheila Chisholm, Princess Romanowsky, wife of (1) Lord Loughborough (2) Sir
John Milbanke Baronet (3) Prince Dmitri Alexandrovitch of Russia
Dame Nellie Melba, mistress of a Duke of Orleans
Philippa MacDonald a wife of Don Marco Torlonia grandson of Alfonso XIII of
Spain

and there are more :-)

With best wishes
Leo

Paul Mackenzie

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Paul Mackenzie » 12 aug 2005 05:52:38

Denis B's interesting comments about Quebec suggest that the quest for
origins of Quebecois immigrants has developed differently, and of course
it presents different problems. I would be interested to hear an
analogous overview of the Australian immigrant-ancestor field: where and
how are discoveries most fruitfully made, and what is the percentage of
known origins for members of different waves or cohorts of immigrants
(convict vs. non-convict; groups categorized by period, etc.); what is
the history of interest and research into this area; are there early
convict immigrants with known royal ancestries; etc.? And what about
other European colonies--e.g. Brazil?

Nat Taylor


Hi Nat;

Some comments

The records for the convict settlers were very detailed as compared to
the first free settlers. The convicts each had a recorded history and
these are still available. As to free settlers, the main records are
shipping records, BDM, and newspapers.

Overall, there is little prospect for Australian convicts settlers
having royal ancestors. However, there were a number of convicts who
were of the middle or upper class. I think Francis Greenway, the
archictect was maybe one. On the other hand, the Military Government
which governed these convicts are prime candidates for royal ancestries.

The population of Australia exploded in the 1860's because of the
dicovery of gold. The convict system was finally disbanded and the
immigrants were then entirely free settlers. Among them were
"remmittance men", prime candidates for royal ancestors.

"A Remittance Man" was called that because most received a scheduled
remittance or allowance from their families. These payments were often
made in order to keep the man away from Britain where it was thought he
would cause problems for his family.

The 'Remittance Men' ....were second sons, which under British tradition
of the time meant that these individuals should expect to inherit
nothing from their family's estate. Following British tradition, all
wealth and property were given to a family's oldest son, assuring that
the family's fortune stayed in one piece. "

I do have connections to the shirley & de braose family and these came
through a free settler and his family to Tasmania in 1840. My other
ancestors included a women convict who was transported here in 1804, and
an army marine who came around the same time. My other ancestors were
common folk from england and ireland.

There were many different nationalities amongst the convicts. One that
comes to mind was a black Jamaician called "Blues" I think. He had a
punt that crossed Sydney harbour, where Sydney Harbour Bridge now
stands. Part of Sydney harbour (under the bridege) is called "Blues
Point"

Regards

Paul

Gjest

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 aug 2005 07:30:01

The noted Jamaican convict was Billy Blue.

I have several NSW convict ancestors, one of whom was descended from
King Henry II, inter alia, as detailed in the latest edition of
'Descent' (Journal of the Society of Australian Genealogists). It will
be interesting to see whether this flushes out any other Australian
convicts of royal descent.

MAR

Paul Mackenzie

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Paul Mackenzie » 12 aug 2005 08:15:28

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
The noted Jamaican convict was Billy Blue.

I have several NSW convict ancestors, one of whom was descended from
King Henry II, inter alia, as detailed in the latest edition of
'Descent' (Journal of the Society of Australian Genealogists). It will
be interesting to see whether this flushes out any other Australian
convicts of royal descent.

MAR


Hi Mar:

Very interesting! Would I be too presumptious in requesting a copy of
your article.

Kind Regards

Paul
Glass House Mountains
Queensland

Ginny Wagner

RE: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 12 aug 2005 16:58:02

In The Thorney Annals 963-1412AD, edited by Hart, an entry for the
year 1398 is apropos this discussion:

pg. 41

"1398 In this year Richard, earl of Arundel was condemned to death by
Parliament at London in the presence of the king and of those leaders
who held the royal power, and he was beheaded on Tower Hill with much
suffering and tears.

"And at the same parliament Thomas, Earl of Warwick was condemned to
death as a traitor but by the king's mercy his life was preserved and
he was condemned to exile in the Isle of (Man).

"In the same year Thomas Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury[149], who
is said to have consented .... was banished from (England) without
hope of returning.

"[fn149] Thomas Arundel, bishop of Ely 9 April 1379 x 3 April 1388,
archbishop of York 1388 x 25 September 1396, archbishop of Canterbury
1396 x 1397, transferred in exile to St. Andrews. He was the brother
of Richard, earl of Arundel.

Ginny Wagner

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 12 aug 2005 17:59:28

In article <GCEILMENLHOGHNKOOPOOEEKPFPAA.ginnywagner@austin.rr.com>,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com ("Ginny Wagner") wrote:

"In the same year Thomas Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury[149], who
is said to have consented .... was banished from (England) without
hope of returning.

"[fn149] Thomas Arundel, bishop of Ely 9 April 1379 x 3 April 1388,
archbishop of York 1388 x 25 September 1396, archbishop of Canterbury
1396 x 1397, transferred in exile to St. Andrews. He was the brother
of Richard, earl of Arundel.

Rather a different type of individual than most of the Australian
convicts, but you're right: even the best-born could end up on the wrong
side of the law. Remember Wimsey's brother, the Duke of Denver, in the
dock in _Clouds of Witness_.

My favorite--fictional--treatment of transportations is the two
(non-coterminous) plots surrounding the spy Louisa Wogan and the
addicted loblolly boy Padeen Coleman, in Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey /
Maturin novels.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 13 aug 2005 03:00:02

In that case I have high hopes for my First Fleeter, Elizabeth Needham. She
was certainly a woman of great character, but whether that would denote a
noble lineage time will tell!
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia


-------Original Message-------

From: mjcar@btinternet.com
Date: 08/12/05 16:12:12
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

The noted Jamaican convict was Billy Blue.

I have several NSW convict ancestors, one of whom was descended from
King Henry II, inter alia, as detailed in the latest edition of
'Descent' (Journal of the Society of Australian Genealogists). It will
be interesting to see whether this flushes out any other Australian
convicts of royal descent.

MAR

Gjest

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 aug 2005 10:14:25

It's just a note - too short and unreferenced to be dignified with the
title of "article". I attach an extract with the relevant details:

'Descent', Vol 35 part 1, March 2005, pp19-20:

"Australian Convicts of Royal Descent

"Member Michael Andrews-Reading... is a descendant of Thomas Howlett,
of Soham, Cambridgeshire who was a convict on the Larkins in 1817 along
with his brothers William and James. An uncle, Henry Howlett, was
already in the colony having been transported on the Royal Admiral in
1792. All three brothers married (two of them successively to
Michael's four times great-grandmother, Lydia Gill, who was herself the
daughter of two convicts), and the families settled initially in the
Camden, Luddenham and Bringelly areas of New South Wales, just south of
present-day Sydney.

"Research has confirmed that the three brothers were the sons of Edward
Howlett, a farmer, and Sarah nee Friend. Sarah was the daughter of
Joshua Friend, a farmer of Soham, who was in turn the son of Docwra
Friend, a cordwainer of Ely. Docwra's distinctive given name was the
result of his father Joshua Friend marrying an Ann Docwra in 1676. Ann
was the daughter of Edward Docwra of Soham and Cherry Hinton, who
appear[s] as the latest-listed generation in the Docwra pedigree in the
[16]19 Visitation of Cambridgeshire. The Docwras were a reasonably
well-off and influential county family and by virtue of some judicious
16th century marriages to brides of good birth, were descended from
King Henry II, the first Plantagenet monarch of England, who died in
1189.

"Many other Australians descended from the Howletts transported to
Australia will of course share this royal heritage."

It is my hope that this piece may spur some other
convicts-with-royal-ancestry reports in Descent.

We often hear on this forum that there is nothing unusual about having
mediaeval royal ancestry: I agree. However, my convict ancestor was
certainly pretty low down on the social scale, being an agricultural
labourer [it is interesting to note the generational social descent of
this line from a wealthy landowning MP under Elizabeth I to a convict
ag. lab. in less than 250 years], so the unusual aspect is being able
to trace the ancestry despite the vicissitudes exhibited in the lineage
(I am pleased to say we have bounced back again since 1817!!). This
tracing was really only possible because of the relatively rare surname
Docwra, used as a Christian name in successive generations, which
enabled the relevant primary documents to be identified - a process
that took me about 12 years.

The term "gateway" (in this case a GARD, as Mr Hines notes elsewhere)
is very apt: when I plot my known ancestors by generation, the chart
looks like a bit like a span bridge, starting narrowly (me), building
up to a large number about one/two hundred years ago, and then
narrowing extremely in the 1500s before exploding in the mediaeval
period thanks to the Docwras.

MAR

John Steele Gordon

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 13 aug 2005 13:27:02

In the early days of many North American colonies, there was a surfeit of
men. In Virginia as late as the 1620's, the ratio of men to women was 4 or 5
to 1. When the Virginia Company sent over a boatload of 90 female indentured
servants in 1619, they were snapped up at the price of 125 pounds of tobacco
each by the female-starved male settlers.

This was not true of early New England as the Puritans tended to emigrate as
families, but I'd be very surprised if it were not true of Quebec, which
depended so much on the fur trade. That was not exactly women's work.

JSG


<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:1f1.4187306c.302cdee5@aol.com...
In a message dated 8/11/2005 8:11:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
no@nospam.com.invalid writes:


In Quebec, for example, there is an estimate of 30,000 immigrants from
Europe during the French regime (1608 to 1763). About 20,000 never
married and of the other 10,000,

Two-thirds of the Quebecois immigrants never married ?
Was it something in the water?
Will

Gjest

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 aug 2005 15:05:02

Dear JSG,
I wouldn`1 be suprised at all if the two-thirds of
unmarried Quebecois didn`t in fact marry into local (i.e Quebec, Maine, Nova Scotia,
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, etc ) Indian Tribes as well as a few English
settlements. has anyone heard for instance of a certain Hosea Malett, a
fisherman of French origin who married a woman named Grace and had a daughter
Elizabeth Malet. They lived in New Hampshire and after his death circa 1650 moved to
Beverley, Massachusetts where Grace married as his 3rd wife Benjamin Balch.
Elizabeth was married to Peter Wooden / Woodin.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA

Denis Beauregard

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Denis Beauregard » 13 aug 2005 16:56:33

Le Sat, 13 Aug 2005 13:04:12 +0000 (UTC), Jwc1870@aol.com écrivait
dans soc.genealogy.medieval:

Dear JSG,
I wouldn`1 be suprised at all if the two-thirds of
unmarried Quebecois didn`t in fact marry into local (i.e Quebec, Maine, Nova Scotia,
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, etc ) Indian Tribes as well as a few English

Not 20,000 persons. Only some of them did so.

In my own opinion, that 20,000 is overestimated. I don't know how
they computed it. I think I should make my own list to find out.

But I can isolate some of them:

- Carignant regiment. Came in 1665-1668. Troups were 1,600 in all,
there is a list of 400 who settled (200 have been identified or
guessed). So, we have 200 identified, most of them married, 200
missing (perhaps, they were among other persons married at that
time) and 1,200 returned to France.

- Seven-year was. Came in 1756-1759. There is a list of 2,300
soldiers, apparently made from a official list.

Short study of letter C

Another list of soldiers, from local records was publish. Letter C to
Choinel liste in MSGCF vol. 5

total: about 95, married: 16, died single during war: 13
from the role: 151 (same letters)

From a rule of 3:

about 390 were married, 315 killed during war (and identified as
soldiers) and 1445 were identified in local records. The unmarried
back to France are about 1600.

So, for the soldiers from regiments, we have about 1,700 found in
local records, from 3,900 who travelled, 400 likely killed here and
2,800 back to France.

Did someone made an estimate from other lists (hired persons for
example), from the single and unidentified persons in the computer
version of Quebec early French inhabitants (PRDH has such a database
with roughly 700,000 records most of them catholic baptisms, marriages
and burials from 1621 to 1800, with about 2,000,000 names). Without
an official reference list, we can't know.


settlements. has anyone heard for instance of a certain Hosea Malett, a
fisherman of French origin who married a woman named Grace and had a daughter
Elizabeth Malet. They lived in New Hampshire and after his death circa 1650 moved to
Beverley, Massachusetts where Grace married as his 3rd wife Benjamin Balch.
Elizabeth was married to Peter Wooden / Woodin.

Huguenots are not counted in the estimated 30,000 immigrants, nor are
those who went to other colonies (like Acadia or Louisiana). This
estimate is supposed to be for immigrant to the land under the control
of Quebec city during the French regime, which covers south of Quebec,
forts in Northern NY, and maybe forts in the west (where soldiers were
anyway provided from the East, and new settlers cam from the East
too).

By the way, the family name is not always a reference to identify
someone as of French origin. Many Beauchamp or Beaumont, for
example, are of English origin. Remember the Norman conquest of
England.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard - Les Français d'Amérique
/\/ http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1711
/ | http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
oo oo Mon association de généalogie: http://www.sgcf.com

Paul Mackenzie

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Paul Mackenzie » 14 aug 2005 10:57:22

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
It's just a note - too short and unreferenced to be dignified with the
title of "article". I attach an extract with the relevant details:

'Descent', Vol 35 part 1, March 2005, pp19-20:

"Australian Convicts of Royal Descent

"Member Michael Andrews-Reading... is a descendant of Thomas Howlett,
of Soham, Cambridgeshire who was a convict on the Larkins in 1817 along
with his brothers William and James. An uncle, Henry Howlett, was
already in the colony having been transported on the Royal Admiral in
1792. All three brothers married (two of them successively to
Michael's four times great-grandmother, Lydia Gill, who was herself the
daughter of two convicts), and the families settled initially in the
Camden, Luddenham and Bringelly areas of New South Wales, just south of
present-day Sydney.

"Research has confirmed that the three brothers were the sons of Edward
Howlett, a farmer, and Sarah nee Friend. Sarah was the daughter of
Joshua Friend, a farmer of Soham, who was in turn the son of Docwra
Friend, a cordwainer of Ely. Docwra's distinctive given name was the
result of his father Joshua Friend marrying an Ann Docwra in 1676. Ann
was the daughter of Edward Docwra of Soham and Cherry Hinton, who
appear[s] as the latest-listed generation in the Docwra pedigree in the
[16]19 Visitation of Cambridgeshire. The Docwras were a reasonably
well-off and influential county family and by virtue of some judicious
16th century marriages to brides of good birth, were descended from
King Henry II, the first Plantagenet monarch of England, who died in
1189.

"Many other Australians descended from the Howletts transported to
Australia will of course share this royal heritage."

It is my hope that this piece may spur some other
convicts-with-royal-ancestry reports in Descent.

We often hear on this forum that there is nothing unusual about having
mediaeval royal ancestry: I agree. However, my convict ancestor was
certainly pretty low down on the social scale, being an agricultural
labourer [it is interesting to note the generational social descent of
this line from a wealthy landowning MP under Elizabeth I to a convict
ag. lab. in less than 250 years], so the unusual aspect is being able
to trace the ancestry despite the vicissitudes exhibited in the lineage
(I am pleased to say we have bounced back again since 1817!!). This
tracing was really only possible because of the relatively rare surname
Docwra, used as a Christian name in successive generations, which
enabled the relevant primary documents to be identified - a process
that took me about 12 years.

The term "gateway" (in this case a GARD, as Mr Hines notes elsewhere)
is very apt: when I plot my known ancestors by generation, the chart
looks like a bit like a span bridge, starting narrowly (me), building
up to a large number about one/two hundred years ago, and then
narrowing extremely in the 1500s before exploding in the mediaeval
period thanks to the Docwras.

MAR

Many thanks for your "note". It gives some idea of the generational

social descent from noble families. It also highlights the probability
of the existence of sons of younger sons that have gone unrecorded or
confused with elder sons.

Kind Regards

Paul

Gjest

Re: Gateway Ancestors Exposed

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 aug 2005 17:20:58

Indeed - part of my problem with the late 16th/early 17th century on
this line was the existence of six overlapping Thomas Docwras:

(1) the father (1519-1602);
(2) the first son (c1548-1621);
(3) the younger son of the second son (1591-1662);
(4) the younger son of (3)'s older brother (c1618-1677);
(5) the oldest grandson of (2) (c1623-1706);
(6) the oldest grandson of (3) (1639-1664).

That equates to much room for confusion. There wasn't that much
variance between the social standing of all six, which actually made
the sorting out rather more complicated. The decline in social
standing through daughters marrying into other families therefore
appears to be much more pronounced in this case. This also appears to
be a feature in the thread on Brad Verity's research into matrilineal
descents from Edward I. Clearly there are many, many more mediaeval
royal descents ready to be chartered amongst the English gentry and
middle class - indeed, it's just that there are so many, one could
never hope to get them all collated.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»