Fw: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History Maga

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Fw: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History Maga

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 21 des 2004 21:21:01

FYI
----- Original Message -----
From: Leo van de Pas
To: FTMletters@fwpubs.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 12:20 PM
Subject: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History Magazine


I just bought your December 2004 issue as I saw many interesting articles. Having said that, I found one small regrettable piece with information. In the article by Susan Wenner Jackson "First Family Ties", on page 29 is a small box by Grace Dobush named Red, White and Blueblood. English is my second language and I have learned that English is a very precise language and genealogy should be explained precisely and correctly.

Why is said that "the Roosevelt family traces back to King Edward I of England"?
There is more than one Roosevelt President and what is special about Edward I? And trying to be precise, which Edward I? Edward Longshanks or Edward the Elder?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first King as ancestor is James II, King of Scots 1430-1460, then James I, KIng of Scots, 1394-1437, then Edward III, King of England, he is a son of Edward II, King of England, who is a son of Edward I Longshanks, King of England.

Now Theodore Roosevelt, I cannot find a descent from James II, King of Scots, but his first King as ancestor is James I, King of Scots and he also descends from Edward III, Edward II, and Edward I Longshanks.

As you see the ancestry of the two Roosevelt Presidents is not identical.

Now a serious mis-representation : Gary Boyd Roberts reports that Senator John Kerry has 11 royal ancestors; President George W. Bush has only nine.

What is meant by "John Kerry has 11 royal ancestors"? Only eleven? This is a serious mis-representation. If we restrict the term 'royal' to ruling Emperors and (most) Kings, John Kerry's "Royal ancestors" number a great deal more than just 11. I can only wonder whether Gary Boyd Roberts has been quoted wrongly. Here follows an incomplete list for John Kerry

Emperors of the West
Albrecht I (Emperor Elect)
Charlemagne
Charles the Bald
Friedrich I Barbarossa
Heinrich I the Fowler (Emperor Elect)
Heinrich III
Heinrich IV
Heinrich VII
Konrad II
Lothar von Supplinburg
Ludwig IV the Bavarian
Otto I
Otto II
Philipp von Hohenstaufen (Emperor Elect)
Rudolf I of Habsburg

Emperors of the east
Alexios I Komnenos
Alexios III Komnenos Angelos
Constantine IX Monomachus
Isaac II Angelos
Johannes II Komnenos Dukas
Theodore Laskaris

Emperors of Constantinople
Baudouin VI-IX of Flanders
Pierre II de Courtenay

Kings of
ARAGON
Alfonso II
Jaime I
Ramiro II
Pedro II
Ramiro I
Sancho I
ASTURIAS
Alfonso III
Ordono II
BOHEMIA
Johann the Blind
Przemysl Ottokar I
Wladislaw II
Wratislaw II
BURGUNDY
Conrad I
CASTILE
Alfonso VI
Alfonso VIII
Fernando I
DENMARK
Erik Ejegod
Gorm the Old
Svend II
Valdemar I
ENGLAND
Aethelred II the Unready
Aethelwulf
Alfred the Great
Edmund II Ironside
Edward I the Elder
Edward I Longshanks
Edward II
Edward III
Harold II
Henry I
Henry II
Henry III
John
Stephen de Blois
William the Conqueror
FRANCE
Henri I
Hugues Capet
Jean II
Louis II
Louis VI
Louis VII
Louis VIII
Louis IX
Philippe I
Philippe II August
Philippe III
Philippe IV
Philippe V
Philippe VI
Robert I
Robert II
HUNGARY
Andras II
Bela I
Bela III
Geisa I
IRELAND
Brian Boru
ITALY
Berengar II
JERUSALEM
Amalric I of Anjou
Baudouin II
Foulques V of Anjou
Jean de Brienne
LEON
Alfonso V
Alfonso IX
Ramiro II
Ordono III
Vermudo II
NAPLES
Charles I
Charles II
NAVARRE
Enrique I
Garcia V
Garcia VI
Sancho III
Sancho VI
Thibault IV
NORWAY
Harald I
Olaf II
POLAND
Boleslaw I
Boleslaw III
Mieszki II
Wladislaw II
PORTUGAL
Alfonso I
SCOTS
Constantine I
David I the Saint
Donald II
Donald III Bane
Duncan I
James I
James II
Kenneth I Macalpin
Kenneth II
Malcolm I
Malcolm II
Malcolm III Canmore
Robert I the Bruce
Robert II
Robert III
William the Lion
SWEDEN
Erik Segersall
Inge Stenkilsson
Olof III Skotkonung
Stenkil Ragnvaldsson

Hope this corrects this mis-statement.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History Maga

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 21 des 2004 21:36:19

Yes, Leo makes some good points here.

Sloppy writing AND THINKING by [allegedly] Grace Dobush and her EDITORS.

A Genealogy Magazine, even a popular, non-scholarly one, ought to do
better than this.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000701c4e79a$0e2370c0$c3b4fea9@email...

| FYI
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: Leo van de Pas
| To: FTMletters@fwpubs.com
| Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 12:20 PM
| Subject: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History Magazine
|
|
| I just bought your December 2004 issue as I saw many interesting
articles. Having said that, I found one small regrettable piece with
information. In the article by Susan Wenner Jackson "First Family Ties",
on page 29 is a small box by Grace Dobush named Red, White and
Blueblood. English is my second language and I have learned that English
is a very precise language and genealogy should be explained precisely
and correctly.
|
| Why is said that "the Roosevelt family traces back to King Edward I of
England"?
| There is more than one Roosevelt President and what is special about
Edward I? And trying to be precise, which Edward I? Edward Longshanks
or Edward the Elder?
|
| Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first King as ancestor is James II, King
of Scots 1430-1460, then James I, KIng of Scots, 1394-1437, then Edward
III, King of England, he is a son of Edward II, King of England, who is
a son of Edward I Longshanks, King of England.
|
| Now Theodore Roosevelt, I cannot find a descent from James II, King of
Scots, but his first King as ancestor is James I, King of Scots and he
also descends from Edward III, Edward II, and Edward I Longshanks.
|
| As you see the ancestry of the two Roosevelt Presidents is not
identical.
|
| Now a serious mis-representation : Gary Boyd Roberts reports that
Senator John Kerry has 11 royal ancestors; President George W. Bush has
only nine.
|
| What is meant by "John Kerry has 11 royal ancestors"? Only eleven?
This is a serious mis-representation. If we restrict the term 'royal' to
ruling Emperors and (most) Kings, John Kerry's "Royal ancestors" number
a great deal more than just 11. I can only wonder whether Gary Boyd
Roberts has been quoted wrongly. Here follows an incomplete list for
John Kerry
|
| Emperors of the West
| Albrecht I (Emperor Elect)
| Charlemagne
| Charles the Bald
| Friedrich I Barbarossa
| Heinrich I the Fowler (Emperor Elect)
| Heinrich III
| Heinrich IV
| Heinrich VII
| Konrad II
| Lothar von Supplinburg
| Ludwig IV the Bavarian
| Otto I
| Otto II
| Philipp von Hohenstaufen (Emperor Elect)
| Rudolf I of Habsburg
|
| Emperors of the east
| Alexios I Komnenos
| Alexios III Komnenos Angelos
| Constantine IX Monomachus
| Isaac II Angelos
| Johannes II Komnenos Dukas
| Theodore Laskaris
|
| Emperors of Constantinople
| Baudouin VI-IX of Flanders
| Pierre II de Courtenay
|
| Kings of
| ARAGON
| Alfonso II
| Jaime I
| Ramiro II
| Pedro II
| Ramiro I
| Sancho I
| ASTURIAS
| Alfonso III
| Ordono II
| BOHEMIA
| Johann the Blind
| Przemysl Ottokar I
| Wladislaw II
| Wratislaw II
| BURGUNDY
| Conrad I
| CASTILE
| Alfonso VI
| Alfonso VIII
| Fernando I
| DENMARK
| Erik Ejegod
| Gorm the Old
| Svend II
| Valdemar I
| ENGLAND
| Aethelred II the Unready
| Aethelwulf
| Alfred the Great
| Edmund II Ironside
| Edward I the Elder
| Edward I Longshanks
| Edward II
| Edward III
| Harold II
| Henry I
| Henry II
| Henry III
| John
| Stephen de Blois
| William the Conqueror
| FRANCE
| Henri I
| Hugues Capet
| Jean II
| Louis II
| Louis VI
| Louis VII
| Louis VIII
| Louis IX
| Philippe I
| Philippe II August
| Philippe III
| Philippe IV
| Philippe V
| Philippe VI
| Robert I
| Robert II
| HUNGARY
| Andras II
| Bela I
| Bela III
| Geisa I
| IRELAND
| Brian Boru
| ITALY
| Berengar II
| JERUSALEM
| Amalric I of Anjou
| Baudouin II
| Foulques V of Anjou
| Jean de Brienne
| LEON
| Alfonso V
| Alfonso IX
| Ramiro II
| Ordono III
| Vermudo II
| NAPLES
| Charles I
| Charles II
| NAVARRE
| Enrique I
| Garcia V
| Garcia VI
| Sancho III
| Sancho VI
| Thibault IV
| NORWAY
| Harald I
| Olaf II
| POLAND
| Boleslaw I
| Boleslaw III
| Mieszki II
| Wladislaw II
| PORTUGAL
| Alfonso I
| SCOTS
| Constantine I
| David I the Saint
| Donald II
| Donald III Bane
| Duncan I
| James I
| James II
| Kenneth I Macalpin
| Kenneth II
| Malcolm I
| Malcolm II
| Malcolm III Canmore
| Robert I the Bruce
| Robert II
| Robert III
| William the Lion
| SWEDEN
| Erik Segersall
| Inge Stenkilsson
| Olof III Skotkonung
| Stenkil Ragnvaldsson
|
| Hope this corrects this mis-statement.
| With best wishes
| Leo van de Pas
| Canberra, Australia

Gjest

Re: Fw: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 des 2004 22:21:01

I have always wondered why is it that Americans seem so intent on tracing
their lineage back to some King or other? Why can't they just be content with
being themselves. Surely, the 'blue blood' has thinned down considerably by the
time we get to the 21st century and there probably isn't too much of it left.
Anyhow, I'm sure that for all that 'blue blood' they must also have the
occassional Ag. Lab, Blacksmith, Butcher etc., or other worthwhile ancestors whom
we never seem to hear about.

Steve Barnhoorn

Re: Fw: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History

Legg inn av Steve Barnhoorn » 21 des 2004 22:41:46

Maytree4@aol.com wrote:
I have always wondered why is it that Americans seem so intent on
tracing
their lineage back to some King or other? Why can't they just be
content with
being themselves. Surely, the 'blue blood' has thinned down
considerably by the
time we get to the 21st century and there probably isn't too much of
it left.
Anyhow, I'm sure that for all that 'blue blood' they must also have
the
occassional Ag. Lab, Blacksmith, Butcher etc., or other worthwhile
ancestors whom
we never seem to hear about.

I'm sure some 300 years from now, a genealogist (likely of your
mindset) will be able to claim a descent from Monica Lewinsky. Then,
that descendant will be able to say, "She was the one who serviced Bill
Clinton in the Oval Office. I think we can see her famous blue dress
at the Smithonian.

Now that I have your attention: The fact that someone can successful
trace their loineage that far, and across the ocean, is a major
accomplishment. I know for myself my mother was adopted as as infant,
yet was successful in obtaining a public record which clearly
identified the names of her BIOLOGICAL parents. From there, I was able
to trace my ancestry back to the Royal Houses of Europe as well as some
interesting figures of history. The snobbish attitude is clearly
inherent in your post "I have always wondered why is it that Americans
seem so intent on tracing their lineage back to some King or other?
Why can't they just be content with being themselves." Did it ever
occur to you it has to with a sense of achievement, pride in their
heritage? What's so wrong with that? Any response you could possibly
ever must up will never, ever erase my pride.

Leo van de Pas

Re: Fw: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 21 des 2004 22:51:02

I can well understand that intention of Americans wanting to find Royal
Ancestors.........but as far as I am concerned "any ancestor will do", but
royal ancestors can take you back further in time and often you can find
biographical details about them as well. A fourteenth century butcher,
sadly, may not have left enough traces of him to be able to be linked to
anyone today, superb if you can find it. Also, I think it is great if you
can link yourself to history (I can't) by having an ancestor who
participated in an important historical event. Blue blood is only a concept,
Napoleon Bonaparte did not have any but his brother Jerome's descendants
today belong to the "bluest of blue".

Another aspect is that if you are a descendant of any king, most of the time
you can find out how you are linked to a great many people, Humphrey Bogart,
Brooke Shields, and so on. It also can show you how all, and I mean all,
people are (genealogically) related to each other. I understand that people
with Anglo-Saxon blood (never mind how remotely in their ancestry) are
related to all other people with Anglo-Saxon blood at the most about 25 or
so generations removed. This should emphasis the brother-hood of man and
that one person is as valuable as the next. The next step, of course, that
if this kind of knowledge is available, a lot can be learned with DNA and
other means. I really hope we are just at the beginning of knowledge that
can be extracted through DNA.

Royal ancestors?
Don't knock them, they are interesting, I wouldn't mind having just one :-)
I don't mean that, if I find one great, if not? So what?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <Maytree4@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History
Magazine


I have always wondered why is it that Americans seem so intent on tracing
their lineage back to some King or other? Why can't they just be content
with
being themselves. Surely, the 'blue blood' has thinned down considerably
by the
time we get to the 21st century and there probably isn't too much of it
left.
Anyhow, I'm sure that for all that 'blue blood' they must also have the
occassional Ag. Lab, Blacksmith, Butcher etc., or other worthwhile
ancestors whom
we never seem to hear about.




Gjest

Re: Fw: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 des 2004 23:11:02

Dear Newsgroup,
Maytree and dobtless others are curious as to why
We Americans so avidly seek out `Royal Lines` and have for better than a
century and a half.
It is a most interesting question. Why bother ? It doesn`t by and
large seem to have made Us more intelligent, better looking, more talented nor
yet richer in the pocket. Indeed, for most part it does rather the reverse to
our monetary riches. The American enjoys feeling important, special, belonging
to the same group as the great and the powerful... and the quickest and
perhaps surest ways to make such a connection is through Royal descent, Noble
descent, Descendants of famous early passengers of ships such as the Mayflower or
more prominently recently the Mary and John both of which went firstly to
Massachusetts. Some of us are also habitual collectors, which helps explain the
formats of recent works on the Plantagenet Family by Weis, Sheppard, Faris and
Richardson most notably. In Addition, the average American may be interested in
the numbers of Sea Captain, Southern Aristocrats, Politians ( in especial
Presidents), Soldiers, especially those who died `heroically` or did heroic
things in battle, writers, singers, hoboes (indigents) and slaves.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine

Rick Eaton

Re: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History Maga

Legg inn av Rick Eaton » 21 des 2004 23:31:02

Dear Mr/Ms Maytree,

This sounds to be a bit more of the anti-American snobbery that we have
heard here before and which is profitless.

Aside from a few well-placed, nicely titled and fabulously wealthy
contemporary relations in the UK, I would say that My American ancestors are
and were every bit as noble, erect and blue blooded as our English kin. I
am more than a little proud of their good works in life and for their
contributions to the growth and strength of the United States.

I don't see why we, with English roots and connections to Royalty, the
gentry and nobility are any different from those who would explore a link to
a great American president. There is no shame in either.

In fact, I have several lines to kings on both my maternal and paternal
sides (Everybody seems to go back to Longshanks, don't they?). And, while I
research to confirm these and learn more, the royal connections are less
important to me than some others. It is those brick walls that are more
interesting and most challenging.

Rick Eaton

I have always wondered why is it that Americans seem so intent on tracing
their lineage back to some King or other? Why can't they just be content with
being themselves. Surely, the 'blue blood' has thinned down considerably by
the
time we get to the 21st century and there probably isn't too much of it left.
Anyhow, I'm sure that for all that 'blue blood' they must also have the
occassional Ag. Lab, Blacksmith, Butcher etc., or other worthwhile ancestors
whom
we never seem to hear about.


mdelanow

Re: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History Maga

Legg inn av mdelanow » 22 des 2004 03:08:47

Rick,
Once more your posting is clear and to the point.
I think that as America is so young that some Americans want to connect
to a "Older" heritage, thus
the search back to the land over the pond. Royal connections don't make
a man. But, as any researcher
is well aware of, "Royal" lines are well researched. Why do all that
research, when it has been done?

My American heritage is so much better to research about then any old
inbred royal line. I am a 2nd generation American. My family lines, on
my mothers side went to Canada as Loyalists, while at the same time my
fathers line stayed here as Americans. Why, some were Loyal to the
American cause and served in the American army only to change their
loyalty and flee to Canada as a Loyalist! Am I connested to Royal
Lines? Yes, but almost all Americans that can prove their lineage back
200 hundred years can connect to a Royal line.

Can we all agree that after a while it can get boring to research a
line that is going nowhere? It is at those times that I turn to my
"fun" lines, ie: Royal, Loyalist, etc. Long live the Royal Family and
all the
funny stuff they get themselves into!! Some times it is like watching
a "I Love Lucy" rerun!!

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History Maga

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 22 des 2004 06:34:38

In message of 21 Dec, eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net (Rick Eaton) wrote:

I don't see why we, with English roots and connections to Royalty, the
gentry and nobility are any different from those who would explore a
link to a great American president. There is no shame in either.

Perhaps the time has come to say that the Emperor has no clothes?

I have noted latterly a greater emphasis on studying the "noble and
high-born" English. My point is that this is misconceived.

What has to be remembered is that these comparatively well-documented
people are the heirs of the Norman conquest. In 1066 one of the more
remarkable and long-lasting conquests of any country started. It took
perhaps five years to subdue the country but this was at a bloody cost.
David Douglas in his history of William the Conqueror quotes a Norman
monk writing after the massacres of the people of northern England:

"I am more disposed to pity the sorrows and sufferings of the wretched
people than to undertake the hopeless task of screening one who was
guilty of such wholesale massacre by lying flatteries. I assert
moreover that such barbarous homicide should not pass unpunished."

Douglas then adds:

"Such was the view of a monk in Normandy. A writer from northern
England supplies more precise details of the horrible incidents of
the destruction and recalls the rotting and putrefying corpses which
littered the highways of the afflicted province"

(Apologies for lowering the tone of our deliberations but it is
necessary to give an impression of what actually happened at the hands
of these noble and high-born people.)

By the time of Domesday in 1086, this record of who was a tenant of the
sovereign for what showed that the overwhelming majority of the
tenants-in-chief were Normans or other members of the conquering
tribes. I think there are few conquests where the local government was
so totally replaced. On might instance the Roman conquerors of England,
European conquests of the southern African countries and the Spanish
conquest of Mexico; in more recent times the Chinese conquest of Tibet has
been given a similar stance.

The even more remarkable thing about the Norman conquest was that it
lasted. These people moved across the Channel, conquered and stayed
there. They bred strictly amongst themselves, they kept their own
language, some of which survives to this day in the approval of Acts of
Parliament. They developed the knightly class, the precursor of the
modern tank, and used them to engage in campaigns around the country -
and abroad of course.

At various times these rulers fell to squabbling amongst themselves,
notable are the civil war of the times of Stephen and Matilda and the
Wars of the Roses. Even Magna Carta was little more than attempt to
paper over some cracks in the ruling families; it had little or nothing
to do with the bulk of the population. Succession was a problem and
some kings were not ruthless enough in stamping on signs of dissent.

One tactic of minimising dissent was to demand oaths of submission. A
tenant, that is the seriously large landholders and local barons, had to
submit and pledge loyalty to his feudal superior. With no disrespect
to the religion, this was bound up with the religion such that the
pledges were made sacramental and holy; this made them less likely to
be broken. Religion then was part of maintaining feudal order.

The more I read of this, the more I am struck by resemblance to the
codes of gangsterism, notably Mafian gangsterism. The gangsters rely on
having a strong leader to whom all pledge loyalty. Family is paramount
in knitting together loyalties. Traitors are executed, opponents are
slaughtered. The only difference is that gangsters are usually contrary
to the government, while in England the gangsters were the government.

These people, this restricted (noble?, high-born?) class of people,
remained in power for centuries. Part of the impetus of the English
revolution in the 17th century was a resentment against the Normans who
had conquered the natives, the Saxons (they weren't natives either but
no matter).

Remarkably this identification with the Conquest could still be seen in
19th century England. Burke found this and in his various genealogies
a favourite phrase was that a family came over with the Conqueror. By
doing this, he asserted that that family was, and remained, a ruling
family, they still lorded it over the native population.

It is only perhaps in the last hundred years that the heirs to the
Normans no longer conquer, they no longer rule. A remarkable longevity
of an invading force, seven hundred years or more.

So I question whether it is right to refer to the families we study of
the middle ages, and for whom records survive, as noble or high-born.
Rather I am convinced they behaved always as a privileged race who ran
the country in a form of state mafia. I wonder even what the
relationship is between the Normans who conquered Sicily and the Mafia
that emerged much later.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Gjest

Re: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History Maga

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 des 2004 07:37:27

Then, of course, there are the ongoing crusades, an unholy war that
continues to the present day with similar characters (culturally
speaking). I would not say that the "Normans" have ended their
conquering ways but have only expanded them. I think that entire
cultures can have testosterone poisoning - including the one that I
live in (USA). Perhaps a litmus test of sorts can be devised in which
candidates for office must prove that they do not have too much of that
toxic substance and are, therefore, not too dangerous to make important
decisions involving the lives of other people.

TOF

Re: Fw: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History

Legg inn av TOF » 23 des 2004 18:21:02

I have to admit to having wondered the same thing myself on occasions,
Steve.

Given that most parish registers I`ve had any dealings with only exist from
late 16th/early 17th century it does beg the question "How do they actaully
know?"
As we who search the English records know (I can`t speak at all for other
nations), prior to PRs it was really only the aristocracy who have any form
of tree recorded & those, like the Visitations, can be highly questionable.
Wills etc. may exist - if you aren`t unfortunate enough to be researching
somewhere that suffered losses duirng WW2.

Of course, there are those who can legitimately trace their lines back to
"the worthies" & can prove direct descent by documentation.
Unfortunately, this isn`t the case for all & there does seem to be a
tendemcy to get as far back as "scientifically" possible & then decide that
there could only have been one William Whatsisname in 1575 ,,,,,, the one
descended from King ?? the second etc.
The Internet, while an absolute boon in some ways, has also led to a surge
in misinformation which spreads like wildfire as people pick up the info &
don`t check original sources etc.

I don`t believe that to question authenticity is snobbish. I believe it`s
something every genealogist should do. Yes, to get to the ordinary Joe or
Josephine Bloggs that most of us are today there must be a few ag labs &
paupers in the mix somewhere.
Whatever background one`s ancestors are from, if we are to take genealogy
seriously, we should find the truth. I don`t think it matters whether we
have Kings or Cordwainers, Famous or Felon - our ancestors helped to make us
the individuals that we are.


"Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1103665306.944531.129600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Maytree4@aol.com wrote:
I have always wondered why is it that Americans seem so intent on
tracing
their lineage back to some King or other? Why can't they just be
content with
being themselves. Surely, the 'blue blood' has thinned down
considerably by the
time we get to the 21st century and there probably isn't too much of
it left.
Anyhow, I'm sure that for all that 'blue blood' they must also have
the
occassional Ag. Lab, Blacksmith, Butcher etc., or other worthwhile
ancestors whom
we never seem to hear about.

I'm sure some 300 years from now, a genealogist (likely of your
mindset) will be able to claim a descent from Monica Lewinsky. Then,
that descendant will be able to say, "She was the one who serviced Bill
Clinton in the Oval Office. I think we can see her famous blue dress
at the Smithonian.

Now that I have your attention: The fact that someone can successful
trace their loineage that far, and across the ocean, is a major
accomplishment. I know for myself my mother was adopted as as infant,
yet was successful in obtaining a public record which clearly
identified the names of her BIOLOGICAL parents. From there, I was able
to trace my ancestry back to the Royal Houses of Europe as well as some
interesting figures of history. The snobbish attitude is clearly
inherent in your post "I have always wondered why is it that Americans
seem so intent on tracing their lineage back to some King or other?
Why can't they just be content with being themselves." Did it ever
occur to you it has to with a sense of achievement, pride in their
heritage? What's so wrong with that? Any response you could possibly
ever must up will never, ever erase my pride.

Chris Phillips

Re: Fw: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 23 des 2004 19:05:05

"TOF" wrote:
As we who search the English records know (I can`t speak at all for other
nations), prior to PRs it was really only the aristocracy who have any
form
of tree recorded & those, like the Visitations, can be highly
questionable.
Wills etc. may exist - if you aren`t unfortunate enough to be researching
somewhere that suffered losses duirng WW2.

This sort of thing is quite often said by people who, for some reason, feel
the need to pour cold water on medieal genealogy. Fortunately it really
isn't true - there's a wealth of records containing genealogical evidence
from the pre-1538 period, much of it unpublished. Of course, the higher you
go up the social scale, the easier genealogy becomes. But - for example - if
a family held a single manor as tenants of the crown, systematic
contemporary records of their genealogy should exist from the mid-13th
century up until the mid-17th, when feudal tenure was abolished.

Chris Phillips

Gordon Banks

Re: Fw: Family Tree Magazine - Americas nr 1 Family History

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 23 des 2004 21:23:54

It is because the lineages back to these knights and kings are the only
ones we CAN trace. I'd love to be able to trace my peasant ancestors
back to the 13th century. Can you tell me how that can be done?

On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 21:17 +0000, Maytree4@aol.com wrote:
I have always wondered why is it that Americans seem so intent on tracing
their lineage back to some King or other? Why can't they just be content with
being themselves. Surely, the 'blue blood' has thinned down considerably by the
time we get to the 21st century and there probably isn't too much of it left.
Anyhow, I'm sure that for all that 'blue blood' they must also have the
occassional Ag. Lab, Blacksmith, Butcher etc., or other worthwhile ancestors whom
we never seem to hear about.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»