Gateway Ancestors
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Ken Ozanne
Gateway Ancestors
All,
I've been on this list nearly 3 years now, mostly as a lurker. Just
today, I realized that I still don't understand exactly what is meant by a
gateway ancestor.
I just counted and I have 12 ancestors who came to Australia from other
countries. I'm descended from those 12 and no others. I had supposed, by
analogy, that those were my Australian gateway ancestors.
But surely there are Americans descended from ancestors that arrived
after 1701 (which is where DRs book seems to start - I mean Plantagenet
Ancestry, I suppose MCA is the same). And some of those doubtless have
royal, noble or whatever descent that can be traced to medieval times. Is it
that those arriving before 1701 have some special cachet? And if so, why?
Best,
Ken
I've been on this list nearly 3 years now, mostly as a lurker. Just
today, I realized that I still don't understand exactly what is meant by a
gateway ancestor.
I just counted and I have 12 ancestors who came to Australia from other
countries. I'm descended from those 12 and no others. I had supposed, by
analogy, that those were my Australian gateway ancestors.
But surely there are Americans descended from ancestors that arrived
after 1701 (which is where DRs book seems to start - I mean Plantagenet
Ancestry, I suppose MCA is the same). And some of those doubtless have
royal, noble or whatever descent that can be traced to medieval times. Is it
that those arriving before 1701 have some special cachet? And if so, why?
Best,
Ken
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Gateway Ancestors
Dear Ken,
In a way the term Gatway Ancestor is an awkward one. To me, a Gateway
Ancestor is someone who left one area and moved to another, these areas are
usually continents.
Some restrictions have been added, like, they have to be before, say, 1700,
which would mean that Australia cannot have Gateway Ancestors.
On top of that, some people qualify a Gateway Ancestor _only_ if that person
is descended from royalty.
On my website http://www.genealogics.org go to Text Search (Top right hand
side)
then in the box Search Occupation, you can enter (foir this subject) the
word Gateway and you get Gateway Ancestors for North and South America. If
you enter Pioneer you get the "Gateway Ancestors" for Australia, New Zealand
and Pitcairn Island.
If you enter Gateway - Canada you should get those applying to Canada,
you can have Gateway - USA as well as Gateway - Chile and so on.
At the moment you will (for America) get all the Gateway Ancestors in the
same fashion, but I am working on making an indication which Gateway
Ancestor _also_ has a descent from Royalty.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Ozanne" <kenozanne@bordernet.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 8:46 AM
Subject: Gateway Ancestors
In a way the term Gatway Ancestor is an awkward one. To me, a Gateway
Ancestor is someone who left one area and moved to another, these areas are
usually continents.
Some restrictions have been added, like, they have to be before, say, 1700,
which would mean that Australia cannot have Gateway Ancestors.
On top of that, some people qualify a Gateway Ancestor _only_ if that person
is descended from royalty.
On my website http://www.genealogics.org go to Text Search (Top right hand
side)
then in the box Search Occupation, you can enter (foir this subject) the
word Gateway and you get Gateway Ancestors for North and South America. If
you enter Pioneer you get the "Gateway Ancestors" for Australia, New Zealand
and Pitcairn Island.
If you enter Gateway - Canada you should get those applying to Canada,
you can have Gateway - USA as well as Gateway - Chile and so on.
At the moment you will (for America) get all the Gateway Ancestors in the
same fashion, but I am working on making an indication which Gateway
Ancestor _also_ has a descent from Royalty.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Ozanne" <kenozanne@bordernet.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 8:46 AM
Subject: Gateway Ancestors
All,
I've been on this list nearly 3 years now, mostly as a lurker. Just
today, I realized that I still don't understand exactly what is meant by a
gateway ancestor.
I just counted and I have 12 ancestors who came to Australia from other
countries. I'm descended from those 12 and no others. I had supposed, by
analogy, that those were my Australian gateway ancestors.
But surely there are Americans descended from ancestors that arrived
after 1701 (which is where DRs book seems to start - I mean Plantagenet
Ancestry, I suppose MCA is the same). And some of those doubtless have
royal, noble or whatever descent that can be traced to medieval times. Is
it
that those arriving before 1701 have some special cachet? And if so, why?
Best,
Ken
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Gateway Ancestors
In article <C095D962.1DF1%kenozanne@bordernet.com.au>,
kenozanne@bordernet.com.au (Ken Ozanne) wrote:
There have been loads of threads about defining this term, for as long
as this group has been going (11 years?). I will cite here one post of
mine from 2003 which quoted two earlier posts (from 2001 and 2000):
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... a65ce6d63c
4?dmode=source&hl=en
This definition is a sociologically-based one with broad applicability;
it is not just limited to 17th-century American immigrants with royal
ancestry, though these certainly form a qualifying subset of 'gateway
ancestors' and are of interest to many US posters here. The broad
definition is based on that of Sir Anthony R. Wagner, who (I think)
coined the term in his writings published in the 1970s.
Leo has sought to use the term 'gateway' for any immigrant (from
anywhere to anywhere), but the most important element of the definition
for genealogy is a person who brings a significant amount of known
ancestry from one group into a different population. So immigrants with
unknown ancestries aren't gateways by Wagner's definition.
In the US setting, seventeenth-century colonial immigrants are perhaps
the most talked about for the simple reason that because they are the
longest-ago of most people's known (Euro-) American ancestors, hence
they are the cohort with the largest pool of current descendants, hence
they have a higher critical mass of curiosity with many genealogists
numbering among their descendants. Potential gateways among more recent
immigrant ancestors are less likely to be fervently researched by a
large cohort of curious descendants, because they have fewer descendants.
This may be one of the things that distinguishes the US from the native
British cohorts on this group. The US population has 'hourglassed'
through a small and well-studied group of 17th-century migrants, among
whom a set of known 'gateways' to medieval ancestry has been found to be
among the common ancestors of large numbers of the current population.
In Britain, national attention has not been focused on a particular
generation in the same way (because there is no single mass migration to
generate so many dead ends and focus everyone's attention on those with
traceable paths), so interest and research end up diffused over a
broader spectrum of subjects. It is understandable, then, that British
and Commonwealth researchers are somewhat bemused (or even incredulous)
about the incestuousness of American colonial gateways. I am conscious
of sharing many 17th-century colonial ancestors (gateways or not) with
many other US posters on this list, and am wholly unsurprised by it. I
wonder whether the British posters commonly have common ancestors in the
17th century; or if they do, whether they are aware of it.
I should note that I have for a year or so now had a list of over 400
17th-century colonial North American immigrants (mostly male heads of
household) who are ancestors of my children (it is linked in my .sig
below). In response to Norenxaq, I would say it's not so much 'bragging
rights' as the chance to say: "I descend from X too; let's compare
notes."
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
kenozanne@bordernet.com.au (Ken Ozanne) wrote:
All,
I've been on this list nearly 3 years now, mostly as a lurker. Just
today, I realized that I still don't understand exactly what is meant by a
gateway ancestor.
I just counted and I have 12 ancestors who came to Australia from other
countries. I'm descended from those 12 and no others. I had supposed, by
analogy, that those were my Australian gateway ancestors.
But surely there are Americans descended from ancestors that arrived
after 1701 (which is where DRs book seems to start - I mean Plantagenet
Ancestry, I suppose MCA is the same). And some of those doubtless have
royal, noble or whatever descent that can be traced to medieval times. Is it
that those arriving before 1701 have some special cachet? And if so, why?
There have been loads of threads about defining this term, for as long
as this group has been going (11 years?). I will cite here one post of
mine from 2003 which quoted two earlier posts (from 2001 and 2000):
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... a65ce6d63c
4?dmode=source&hl=en
This definition is a sociologically-based one with broad applicability;
it is not just limited to 17th-century American immigrants with royal
ancestry, though these certainly form a qualifying subset of 'gateway
ancestors' and are of interest to many US posters here. The broad
definition is based on that of Sir Anthony R. Wagner, who (I think)
coined the term in his writings published in the 1970s.
Leo has sought to use the term 'gateway' for any immigrant (from
anywhere to anywhere), but the most important element of the definition
for genealogy is a person who brings a significant amount of known
ancestry from one group into a different population. So immigrants with
unknown ancestries aren't gateways by Wagner's definition.
In the US setting, seventeenth-century colonial immigrants are perhaps
the most talked about for the simple reason that because they are the
longest-ago of most people's known (Euro-) American ancestors, hence
they are the cohort with the largest pool of current descendants, hence
they have a higher critical mass of curiosity with many genealogists
numbering among their descendants. Potential gateways among more recent
immigrant ancestors are less likely to be fervently researched by a
large cohort of curious descendants, because they have fewer descendants.
This may be one of the things that distinguishes the US from the native
British cohorts on this group. The US population has 'hourglassed'
through a small and well-studied group of 17th-century migrants, among
whom a set of known 'gateways' to medieval ancestry has been found to be
among the common ancestors of large numbers of the current population.
In Britain, national attention has not been focused on a particular
generation in the same way (because there is no single mass migration to
generate so many dead ends and focus everyone's attention on those with
traceable paths), so interest and research end up diffused over a
broader spectrum of subjects. It is understandable, then, that British
and Commonwealth researchers are somewhat bemused (or even incredulous)
about the incestuousness of American colonial gateways. I am conscious
of sharing many 17th-century colonial ancestors (gateways or not) with
many other US posters on this list, and am wholly unsurprised by it. I
wonder whether the British posters commonly have common ancestors in the
17th century; or if they do, whether they are aware of it.
I should note that I have for a year or so now had a list of over 400
17th-century colonial North American immigrants (mostly male heads of
household) who are ancestors of my children (it is linked in my .sig
below). In response to Norenxaq, I would say it's not so much 'bragging
rights' as the chance to say: "I descend from X too; let's compare
notes."
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
-
norenxaq
Re: Gateway Ancestors
In response to Norenxaq, I would say it's not so much 'bragging
rights' as the chance to say: "I descend from X too; let's compare
notes."
Nat Taylor
that happens as well. however, I have seen it too often used to boast
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Gateway Ancestors
Ken Ozanne wrote:
There is nothing special about 1700 except that 1700 is
evenly divisible by 100.
but 1607+100=1707 so in fact 1707 would be equally reasonable.
It is true that gateway people arriving after about 1680 or
1690 tend to have fewer living descendants than those who
arrived earlier: thus, you gain fewer sales ... which is
what matters ... for you book by including later gateways
than earlier ones. GBR includes the later ones, but excludes
many early ones too if they don't suit his fancy.
Richardson has one big big exclusion: he doesn't do Scotland
or Ireland, at least except very roundabouts. GBR does.
Doug McDonald
All,
I've been on this list nearly 3 years now, mostly as a lurker. Just
today, I realized that I still don't understand exactly what is meant by a
gateway ancestor.
I just counted and I have 12 ancestors who came to Australia from other
countries. I'm descended from those 12 and no others. I had supposed, by
analogy, that those were my Australian gateway ancestors.
But surely there are Americans descended from ancestors that arrived
after 1701 (which is where DRs book seems to start - I mean Plantagenet
Ancestry, I suppose MCA is the same). And some of those doubtless have
royal, noble or whatever descent that can be traced to medieval times. Is it
that those arriving before 1701 have some special cachet? And if so, why?
There is nothing special about 1700 except that 1700 is
evenly divisible by 100.
but 1607+100=1707 so in fact 1707 would be equally reasonable.
It is true that gateway people arriving after about 1680 or
1690 tend to have fewer living descendants than those who
arrived earlier: thus, you gain fewer sales ... which is
what matters ... for you book by including later gateways
than earlier ones. GBR includes the later ones, but excludes
many early ones too if they don't suit his fancy.
Richardson has one big big exclusion: he doesn't do Scotland
or Ireland, at least except very roundabouts. GBR does.
Doug McDonald
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Gateway Ancestors
fairthorne@breathe.com wrote:
just that somebody . i.e. Richardson, has used that fact
to justify stopping at that date. People often stop things
at round decimal numbers, like 10, 100, or 1000.
Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald writes:
There is nothing special about 1700 except that 1700 is evenly
divisible by 100.
what do you mean by that?
just that somebody . i.e. Richardson, has used that fact
to justify stopping at that date. People often stop things
at round decimal numbers, like 10, 100, or 1000.
Doug McDonald
-
Gjest
Re: Gateway Ancestors
Doug McDonald writes:
what do you mean by that?
that it is a multiple of 100
evenly divisible by 100 suggests that it is divisible by 200!
Srinivasa Ramanujan claimed that every number is special in some way, eg
1729 is the smallest number that can be written as the sum of two cubes in
two different ways, so why not choose that?
pedantically
Simon
There is nothing special about 1700 except that 1700 is evenly divisible
by 100.
what do you mean by that?
that it is a multiple of 100
evenly divisible by 100 suggests that it is divisible by 200!
Srinivasa Ramanujan claimed that every number is special in some way, eg
1729 is the smallest number that can be written as the sum of two cubes in
two different ways, so why not choose that?
pedantically
Simon
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Gateway Ancestors
In message of 21 May, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
wrote:
<big chomp>
My experience with a few people that get in touch is that the more
ancestors you have, the more likely others will share them. In other
words, the earlier the ancestors, the more that will have them in
common.
To show what sort of numbers we are talking of, earlier this year I did
an enormous spreadsheet to do some analysis and here are the different
numbers of ancestors per generation:
Average Average
Generation Birth Death No Found in
No Year Year Generation
== ==== ==== ==========
8 1682 1748 93
9 1652 1711 90
10 1619 1683 85
11 1596 1658 93
12 1562 1625 103
13 1534 1598 121
14 1511 1569 150
15 1481 1540 187
16 1457 1509 220
17 1427 1483 268
18 1384 1453 311
19 1366 1423 367
20 1344 1395 431
21 1300 1364 499
22 1280 1334 582
23 1243 1303 638
24 1219 1272 650
25 1166 1240 541
26 1143 1204 508
27 1090 1173 482
28 1075 1145 435
29 1037 1113 285
My guess is that in those countries populated by immigrants, there would
be a narrowing of numbers in such a chart as the above in the immigrant
years. The main immigrant years would have fewer separate people and
more likelihood of intermarriage among their descendants. But where the
genealogy is contained within a steady population increase, then the
numbers known per generation just steadily increases the further back
that you go.
Though the numbers known of the total in each generation are tiny
percentages. From generation 19 and earlier, the numbers known are less
than 1%. And the reductions from generation 24 and earlier show the
sheer lack of knowledge of the ancestors in those times.
I wonder, though. whether the landholders following the Norman Conquest
are the English Gateway ancestors that show a similar effect to the USA
immigrants. A limited number whose descendants intermarried heavily and
for whom there are vast numbers of modern descendants. Perhaps this is
why Keats-Rohan's two Domesday books are so important and Rosie Bevan's
corrections at http://fmg.ac/ so valuable.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
wrote:
<big chomp>
I wonder whether the British posters commonly have common ancestors
in the 17th century; or if they do, whether they are aware of it.
My experience with a few people that get in touch is that the more
ancestors you have, the more likely others will share them. In other
words, the earlier the ancestors, the more that will have them in
common.
To show what sort of numbers we are talking of, earlier this year I did
an enormous spreadsheet to do some analysis and here are the different
numbers of ancestors per generation:
Average Average
Generation Birth Death No Found in
No Year Year Generation
== ==== ==== ==========
8 1682 1748 93
9 1652 1711 90
10 1619 1683 85
11 1596 1658 93
12 1562 1625 103
13 1534 1598 121
14 1511 1569 150
15 1481 1540 187
16 1457 1509 220
17 1427 1483 268
18 1384 1453 311
19 1366 1423 367
20 1344 1395 431
21 1300 1364 499
22 1280 1334 582
23 1243 1303 638
24 1219 1272 650
25 1166 1240 541
26 1143 1204 508
27 1090 1173 482
28 1075 1145 435
29 1037 1113 285
My guess is that in those countries populated by immigrants, there would
be a narrowing of numbers in such a chart as the above in the immigrant
years. The main immigrant years would have fewer separate people and
more likelihood of intermarriage among their descendants. But where the
genealogy is contained within a steady population increase, then the
numbers known per generation just steadily increases the further back
that you go.
Though the numbers known of the total in each generation are tiny
percentages. From generation 19 and earlier, the numbers known are less
than 1%. And the reductions from generation 24 and earlier show the
sheer lack of knowledge of the ancestors in those times.
I wonder, though. whether the landholders following the Norman Conquest
are the English Gateway ancestors that show a similar effect to the USA
immigrants. A limited number whose descendants intermarried heavily and
for whom there are vast numbers of modern descendants. Perhaps this is
why Keats-Rohan's two Domesday books are so important and Rosie Bevan's
corrections at http://fmg.ac/ so valuable.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Don Stone
Re: Gateway Ancestors
Doug McDonald wrote:
I don't think he excludes many early ones, probably mainly ones whose
descendants die out within a few generations. I once talked to Gary about
his RD 500/600 criterion that the gateway ancestor be notable or have left
descendants notable in American history, worrying that I might have an
obscure colonial ancestor that he had excluded by this criterion. He told
me I didn't have to worry. I suppose the main reason for this is that if a
colonial immigrant has present-day descendants, there are probably many
millions of them, and for none of these descendants to appear in Who's Who
in America or the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography or "even lesser
compendia" would be a truly astounding phenomenon.
-- Don Stone
It is true that gateway people arriving after about 1680 or 1690 tend to
have fewer living descendants than those who arrived earlier: thus, you
gain fewer sales ... which is what matters ... for your book by including
later gateways than earlier ones. GBR includes the later ones, but excludes
many early ones too if they don't suit his fancy.
I don't think he excludes many early ones, probably mainly ones whose
descendants die out within a few generations. I once talked to Gary about
his RD 500/600 criterion that the gateway ancestor be notable or have left
descendants notable in American history, worrying that I might have an
obscure colonial ancestor that he had excluded by this criterion. He told
me I didn't have to worry. I suppose the main reason for this is that if a
colonial immigrant has present-day descendants, there are probably many
millions of them, and for none of these descendants to appear in Who's Who
in America or the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography or "even lesser
compendia" would be a truly astounding phenomenon.
-- Don Stone
-
Gjest
Re: Gateway Ancestors
I believe that the text of RD600 includes ALL colonists
who have known royal descents, regardless of whether they had
descendants or not.
There is a section near the front of the book which lists the colonists
who have 10 + notable descendants.
As an example:
My ancestor, Samuel Levis of Pennsylvania, is included in the book, but
is not listed with those who have notable descendants.
Leslie
who have known royal descents, regardless of whether they had
descendants or not.
There is a section near the front of the book which lists the colonists
who have 10 + notable descendants.
As an example:
My ancestor, Samuel Levis of Pennsylvania, is included in the book, but
is not listed with those who have notable descendants.
Leslie
-
Denis Beauregard
Re: Gateway Ancestors
On Sun, 21 May 2006 20:30:29 GMT, Don Stone <don.stone@verizon.net>
wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
Many immigrants had very few descendants.
I have a funny case in my Beauregard collection.
I have 2 brothers (born in the 1800s, but this is irrelevant here).
One of them had one son who had one son etc. for 4 or 5 generations
(and at the last one, there are 2 children, a son and a daughter).
The other brother had many sons who had many sons, for many
generations.
So, you have 2 brothers, similar origin, similar area, one with a lot
of descendants, the other with only 2 or 3 living descendants
Since it is usually not possible to find a descendant for each line,
it is usually not possible either to be sure there are no descendant
(except for a very few families where there is enough records to
list every child). In my own list, I am pretty sure I have enough
data to be sure some lines have no descendant in Quebec, but this
is limited to Quebec because from time to time, there are descendants
gone back to France and other living in USA.
I have one royal line where I am pretty sure there was no descendant
in Quebec for years, but I was contacted by a descendant living in
USA, his line being from a West Indies line of an Acadian family.
Usually, I have enough resources to locate a descendant in Quebec,
but outside the borders, it is another story.
Denis
wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
me I didn't have to worry. I suppose the main reason for this is that if a
colonial immigrant has present-day descendants, there are probably many
millions of them, and for none of these descendants to appear in Who's Who
Many immigrants had very few descendants.
I have a funny case in my Beauregard collection.
I have 2 brothers (born in the 1800s, but this is irrelevant here).
One of them had one son who had one son etc. for 4 or 5 generations
(and at the last one, there are 2 children, a son and a daughter).
The other brother had many sons who had many sons, for many
generations.
So, you have 2 brothers, similar origin, similar area, one with a lot
of descendants, the other with only 2 or 3 living descendants
Since it is usually not possible to find a descendant for each line,
it is usually not possible either to be sure there are no descendant
(except for a very few families where there is enough records to
list every child). In my own list, I am pretty sure I have enough
data to be sure some lines have no descendant in Quebec, but this
is limited to Quebec because from time to time, there are descendants
gone back to France and other living in USA.
I have one royal line where I am pretty sure there was no descendant
in Quebec for years, but I was contacted by a descendant living in
USA, his line being from a West Indies line of an Acadian family.
Usually, I have enough resources to locate a descendant in Quebec,
but outside the borders, it is another story.
Denis
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Gateway Ancestors
lmahler@att.net wrote:
< I believe that the text of RD600 includes ALL colonists
< who have known royal descents, regardless of whether they had
< descendants or not.
<
< There is a section near the front of the book which lists the
colonists
< who have 10 + notable descendants.
<
< As an example:
< My ancestor, Samuel Levis of Pennsylvania, is included in the book,
but
< is not listed with those who have notable descendants.
<
< Leslie
You're a notable descendant.
DR
< I believe that the text of RD600 includes ALL colonists
< who have known royal descents, regardless of whether they had
< descendants or not.
<
< There is a section near the front of the book which lists the
colonists
< who have 10 + notable descendants.
<
< As an example:
< My ancestor, Samuel Levis of Pennsylvania, is included in the book,
but
< is not listed with those who have notable descendants.
<
< Leslie
You're a notable descendant.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: Gateway Ancestors
Some additional New England colonists of royal descent,
which are not included in Gary's list of those with 10+ notable
descendants:
James Cudworth of Scituate, Mass., who seems to have a fair number
of descendants.
Also Elizabeth (Coytmore) Ting - she is ancestral to one of the Adams
presidents.
Leslie
which are not included in Gary's list of those with 10+ notable
descendants:
James Cudworth of Scituate, Mass., who seems to have a fair number
of descendants.
Also Elizabeth (Coytmore) Ting - she is ancestral to one of the Adams
presidents.
Leslie
I don't think he excludes many early ones, probably mainly ones whose
descendants die out within a few generations. I once talked to Gary about
his RD 500/600 criterion that the gateway ancestor be notable or have left
descendants notable in American history, worrying that I might have an
obscure colonial ancestor that he had excluded by this criterion. He told
me I didn't have to worry. I suppose the main reason for this is that if a
colonial immigrant has present-day descendants, there are probably many
millions of them, and for none of these descendants to appear in Who's Who
in America or the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography or "even lesser
compendia" would be a truly astounding phenomenon.
-- Don Stone