Doug,
I had to look up what happened in 1607. Weren't there earlier French and
Spanish settlements in the now USA?
Norenxaq, Leo, Nat, Will, Sue, Tim, probably others,
Thank you all for your replies. I begin to feel that I understand how the
term is used (and why it seemed a bit vague).
Of my twelve who came to Australia, I can trace five before the beginning of
parish records in England, one to the beginning of parish records in
Scotland and one (with some uncertainty) to the beginning of parish records
in Mecklenbutg-Schwerin. If that's of any interest to anyone.
I'm impressed with the number of known ancestors you have in the 17th
century, Nat. I tend to arrange mine by generations back from my son. His 8G
grandparents tend to have been born in the late 17th century and I know 138
of them. Fewer in preceding generations until the numbers start to grow
again from 13G (108), which is about the beginning of parish records in
England, to 29G (395) which is about the time of the Norman conquest. That
last number is as likely to contract as to expand as I apply the knowledge
of sources that I have slowly gained here and elsewhere. If anyone else has
records that conveniently show this kind of pattern I'd be interested to
know whether my experience is typical.
I did know there were some bragging rights involved. As far as I know,
Australia has nothing corresponding to American lineage societies and I have
only the vaguest idea of how they work. I have heard of DAR, but that's
probably the only name I would recognize.
I'm glad I asked.
Best,
Ken
Gateway Ancestors
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Gateway Ancestors
In article <C09734FD.1E10%kenozanne@bordernet.com.au>,
kenozanne@bordernet.com.au (Ken Ozanne) wrote:
Ken (and Norenxaq), I hope the *quantity* of my (children's) known
17th-century immigrant ancestors was not taken as a boast. I was
certainly surprised when I compiled that table last year (and I have
discovered a few more since then). I will say that a plurality of these
are connected through working-class denizens (farmers and fisherfolk) of
Essex County, Massachusetts--which is often spoken of as the
best-documented county in New England or even the United States, for
court and vital records continuously from the 1630s to the present, and
represents fields well tilled by local genealogists since the beginnings
of New England genealogical curiosity in the early 19th century. My
children's large number of known 17th-c. ancestors is therefore an
accident of geography.
However, in contrast to the 'shape' of Tim's ahnentafel in analogous
generations, mine then does what most colonials' do: immediately behind
the first immigrant cohort, it is cut down almost to nothing, since the
parentage or place of origin of so few of the immigrants is known. For
each of the few 17th-c. immigrants with known parentage one might get
one to four generations in one or two lines, back to when the parish
registers fail; above that it's only the odd line found in wills or
visitations. Above that the tree eventually begins to swell again with
intermarried gentry in the late middle ages, in the pattern resembling
yours and Tims.
My only non-Anglo-American ancestry known in the 17th century is a
cluster of lines in the parish registers of a group of neighboring towns
in Baden-Wurttemberg, ancestral to a 19th-c. US immigrant couple, two of
my great-great-grandparents. Their lines only go back to the beginnings
of the parish registers and cannot (to my knowledge) be carried further.
How I found their village of origin--a needle in the haystack of German
origins of 19th-c US immigrants--is another (off-topic) story.
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:
I'm impressed with the number of known ancestors you have in the 17th
century, Nat. I tend to arrange mine by generations back from my son. His 8G
grandparents tend to have been born in the late 17th century and I know 138
of them. Fewer in preceding generations until the numbers start to grow
again from 13G (108), which is about the beginning of parish records in
England, to 29G (395) which is about the time of the Norman conquest. That
last number is as likely to contract as to expand as I apply the knowledge
of sources that I have slowly gained here and elsewhere. If anyone else has
records that conveniently show this kind of pattern I'd be interested to
know whether my experience is typical.
I did know there were some bragging rights involved. As far as I know,
Australia has nothing corresponding to American lineage societies and I have
only the vaguest idea of how they work. I have heard of DAR, but that's
probably the only name I would recognize.
Ken (and Norenxaq), I hope the *quantity* of my (children's) known
17th-century immigrant ancestors was not taken as a boast. I was
certainly surprised when I compiled that table last year (and I have
discovered a few more since then). I will say that a plurality of these
are connected through working-class denizens (farmers and fisherfolk) of
Essex County, Massachusetts--which is often spoken of as the
best-documented county in New England or even the United States, for
court and vital records continuously from the 1630s to the present, and
represents fields well tilled by local genealogists since the beginnings
of New England genealogical curiosity in the early 19th century. My
children's large number of known 17th-c. ancestors is therefore an
accident of geography.
However, in contrast to the 'shape' of Tim's ahnentafel in analogous
generations, mine then does what most colonials' do: immediately behind
the first immigrant cohort, it is cut down almost to nothing, since the
parentage or place of origin of so few of the immigrants is known. For
each of the few 17th-c. immigrants with known parentage one might get
one to four generations in one or two lines, back to when the parish
registers fail; above that it's only the odd line found in wills or
visitations. Above that the tree eventually begins to swell again with
intermarried gentry in the late middle ages, in the pattern resembling
yours and Tims.
My only non-Anglo-American ancestry known in the 17th century is a
cluster of lines in the parish registers of a group of neighboring towns
in Baden-Wurttemberg, ancestral to a 19th-c. US immigrant couple, two of
my great-great-grandparents. Their lines only go back to the beginnings
of the parish registers and cannot (to my knowledge) be carried further.
How I found their village of origin--a needle in the haystack of German
origins of 19th-c US immigrants--is another (off-topic) story.
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
-
Renia
Re: Gateway Ancestors
Ken Ozanne wrote:
I think there is a First Fleet society, or something of that nature, for
people whose ancestors went to Australia on the first fleet in 1789.
I did know there were some bragging rights involved. As far as I know,
Australia has nothing corresponding to American lineage societies and I have
only the vaguest idea of how they work. I have heard of DAR, but that's
probably the only name I would recognize.
I think there is a First Fleet society, or something of that nature, for
people whose ancestors went to Australia on the first fleet in 1789.
-
Gjest
Re: Gateway Ancestors
Renia wrote:
Indeed: the Fellowship of First Fleeters (the date is actually 1788).
It's sort of our equivalent of the Mayflower Society, only populated
largely by the descendants of convicted criminals (such as yours
truly).
MA-R
Ken Ozanne wrote:
I did know there were some bragging rights involved. As far as I know,
Australia has nothing corresponding to American lineage societies and I have
only the vaguest idea of how they work. I have heard of DAR, but that's
probably the only name I would recognize.
I think there is a First Fleet society, or something of that nature, for
people whose ancestors went to Australia on the first fleet in 1789.
Indeed: the Fellowship of First Fleeters (the date is actually 1788).
It's sort of our equivalent of the Mayflower Society, only populated
largely by the descendants of convicted criminals (such as yours
truly).
MA-R
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Gateway Ancestors
Ken Ozanne wrote:
Spanish, yes, not French. The Spanish ones were not terribly
important. They were not colonies per se, just outposts.
1607 was THE date for the settlement of the USA. There were
even earlier English attempts at colonies, but they failed.
The critical thing to realize is that what matters is
colonies, not just military outposts, and that they
succeeded. The Massachusetts colony gets more press than
Virginia, but that is only because to this day New England
and the Northeast haughtily try to dominant public discourse.
Doug McDonld
Doug,
I had to look up what happened in 1607. Weren't there earlier French and
Spanish settlements in the now USA?
Spanish, yes, not French. The Spanish ones were not terribly
important. They were not colonies per se, just outposts.
1607 was THE date for the settlement of the USA. There were
even earlier English attempts at colonies, but they failed.
The critical thing to realize is that what matters is
colonies, not just military outposts, and that they
succeeded. The Massachusetts colony gets more press than
Virginia, but that is only because to this day New England
and the Northeast haughtily try to dominant public discourse.
Doug McDonld
-
Denis Beauregard
Re: Gateway Ancestors
On Mon, 22 May 2006 07:35:35 -0500, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
What ???? French had nearly half of the continent. A small
number of people, but they were all along the Mississippi
River. Louisiana was a standalone colony. While the southern
colonies were in the diocese of Quebec and had many early
settlers born near Montreal, the settlement was quite
independent. For example, there is a lot of people from
Germany in Louisiana (the German coast). There were many
Spanish officers during the Spanish period (after the
French gave the territory to Spanish by a secret treaty).
Or because the NEHGS is much older than the Virginian equivalent
(can we say it is the NGS ?).
Denis
<mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
Ken Ozanne wrote:
Doug,
I had to look up what happened in 1607. Weren't there earlier French and
Spanish settlements in the now USA?
Spanish, yes, not French. The Spanish ones were not terribly
important. They were not colonies per se, just outposts.
What ???? French had nearly half of the continent. A small
number of people, but they were all along the Mississippi
River. Louisiana was a standalone colony. While the southern
colonies were in the diocese of Quebec and had many early
settlers born near Montreal, the settlement was quite
independent. For example, there is a lot of people from
Germany in Louisiana (the German coast). There were many
Spanish officers during the Spanish period (after the
French gave the territory to Spanish by a secret treaty).
succeeded. The Massachusetts colony gets more press than
Virginia, but that is only because to this day New England
and the Northeast haughtily try to dominant public discourse.
Or because the NEHGS is much older than the Virginian equivalent
(can we say it is the NGS ?).
Denis