Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... I've been curious to know if others of Irish ancestry have the same experience finding records....
I have one presumed Irish line, based on surname. Although the family never identified themselves as Irish on census or any other paperwork McDowell seems kinda definitive. But I have no expectation of identifying where in Ireland the family came from, I trace the line back to a guy who entered the North American mainland at Charleston in the 1690s. He was in his early 20s at the time, birth place Barbados.
My father's side has excellent documentation going back to 1671 in northwest Germany.
My mother's side can only be traced back to the 1830s in County Mayo, Ireland. I've been curious to know if others of Irish ancestry have the same experience finding records.
I think its interesting to know where everyone came from and the timeline.
I haven't been able to get nearly that far.
As I've mentioned, a few years ago I found a ship record, but didn't copy the info down and it disappeared (was on desktop) when my computer blew out. Not only does it not seem to be on ancestry.com anymore, it doesn't seem to be on any other genealogy sites either.
So it's the only 'branch' of my family tree that I haven't been able to get ANY info on.
There was amazing misspelling of last name, but I've tried every possible variation and find nothing...
Oh, I also tried a couple of sites that were actually based in Ireland, but no info there either.
I've traced my fathers side to 1750, and strangely enough we have a lot of information on him, but nothing mentions any parents or siblings. We have Quaker Church membership records from before he got married, deed for 300 acres in N Carolina and deed for 1500 acres in Tennessee as well as other real estate transactions. Marriage certificate, etc. But nothing about parents, siblings, or birthplace. I figure it's probably just a matter of time before someone finds something. He had 6 children and stayed married until he died.
That's funny to me because in trying to trace my ancestors back to Ireland in the 1840s, the name 'Kelly' is listed by the Irish Times as being the second most common last name in the country. Good luck to me trying to find out anything about them since I don't know from where he emigrated.
After a few more weeks of research, I've been able to trace one of my husband's lines to the mid 1500s in Switzerland. Oh, how the spellings change! My "best" so far remains my paternal line going back to mid 1300s England. No royalty though, and that's just fine with me.
Granted, whether these cousin/distance cousin marriages are within a traceable timeline is another question. I agree they are more common in small towns where the marrying pool is smaller but there are many, many small towns around the world throughout history so to say it's rare is a bit misleading, I think.
One way to think about relationship is to consider every relationship outside of either direct line of descent or orders of aunts and uncles as given by x'th cousin y generations removed. For instance Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Prince Phillip are 2nd cousins one generation removed by virtue of their common descent from the King of Denmark who died in 1906, and they are also 3rd cousins zero generation removed by virtue of their common descent from Queen Victoria who died in 1901. There are, of course, billions of relationships between Queen Elizabeth and Phillip with x being some value larger than 3.
By this definition, there is no such thing as unrelated people, just two people with large values for x.
Historical claims are that the peoples of the world were naturally descended from Noah, but co-marriage after the initial break was considered against natural order. The three sons of Noah were Shem "dusky", Japheth "fair", and Ham "black." The Nations Descending from Ham: are Cush or Ethiopia, Mitsrayim or Egypt, then PuT or Libyia, and Canaan last.
Japheth immediate descendants were seven in number, and are represented by the nations the Armenians, Lydians, Medes, Greeks, Tibarenians, and Moschians, the last, Tiras, remaining still obscure.
Prohibition against marriage and procreation in the Catholic church has historically extended to third cousins. A Roman Catholic Church annulment of the Rudy Giuliani -Peruggi marriage was granted at the end of 1983 on the grounds that they had not obtained a church dispensation for second cousins once removed to marry. The Catholic church has since dropped their objections to marriages beyond first cousin.
I don't think there are any civil laws anywhere in the world against marriage for anyone less closely related than first cousins. Particularly in the Muslim world, first cousin marriage is not only common, but preferred.
The maximum possible value of x is usually taken as some number less than 20,000 as it would extend to a time when there were no genetically modern human beings. Of course, theoretically it could extend to our evolutionary ancestors. There is a theory that humans 'almost became extinct in 70,000 BC' and were down to possibly fewer than 2000 people, before they banded together and rebuilt there numbers. In this case perhaps the largest value for x is less than 3000.
Historical values for x probably don't extend beyond a 100, even for the longest lines of traceable humanity (which are from Confucius) . In normal Western world parlance you almost never hear a value for x above 20, as in tracing the common relationship between Prince William and his wife Katherine (probably 15th cousins).
For very tight populations, like people of Icelandic descent, the median value for x is probably less than 4. For British people who only grew above 4 million in the last four centuries, the median value may well be less than 10, and William and Kate are actually less closely related than the median for Britain. France has had a much larger population and probably passed 5 million over 2000 years ago, so any random two people are less likely to be closer related.
Given the world population, it is naturally assumed by most people that the maximum possible value for x is in the tens of thousands. Given that there was no immigration between Eastern and Western hemispheres for tens of thousands of years. When you consider Australian aborigines, Amazonian rainforest natives, African pygmies, European Jews, and British royalty it seems like the maximum value or even the median value must be very high. There is no theoretical possible way of knowing the correct answer, but some recent research indicates that it may be less than 500 and the median value for the entire world may be closer to 50. Europeans may have a maximum value closer to 40.
There is reason to believe that the world population of humans may have only surpassed 5 million in the last 10,000 years. So if you consider that the population has grown by about 1000-1400 times in the last 10,000 years it may make more sense.
Last edited by PacoMartin; 11-16-2015 at 11:38 AM..
My "best" so far remains my paternal line going back to mid 1300s England. No royalty though, and that's just fine with me.
The Black Death resulted in the deaths of an estimated 75 to 200 million people and peaking in Europe in the years 1346–53.
So your comment is vague, was the ancestor born before or after the black death?
Given the relatively small population of England, combined with the devastation of the black death it is mathematically nearly impossible to be English and not be descended from one of the medieval monarchs (i.e. William I to Richard III). The descendants of royals were much more likely to have survived the black death. Edward of Windsor only lost one daughter.
Given the very slow start, it is a relatively small group descended from the Tudors or Stuarts. If you are descended from the Hanoverian monarchs you almost certainly were told at a young age since you technically have a position in the line to the throne.
Most people find their descent from a royal instead of a non-royal line since those bloodlines were better documented.
The Black Death resulted in the deaths of an estimated 75 to 200 million people and peaking in Europe in the years 1346–53.
So your comment is vague, was the ancestor born before or after the black death?
...
I believe the ancestor I found was born sometime after 1360; this recorded on some sort of land or deed record. It is late here now, I will look at my notes in the morning. I do recall seeing one Stuart in my line somewhere. Didn't think too much of it. You are right however regarding the black death. Great posts!
You are right however regarding the black death. Great posts!
Credit where it is due. I am greatly influenced by a professor from Durham University, Andrew Millard.
He makes some attempt to estimate generations and pedigree collapse, and comes to the conclusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millard's Conclusion:
There is an extremely high probability that a modern English person with predominantly English ancestry descends from Edward III, at a very minimum over 99%, and more likely very close to 100%. The number of descendants of Edward III must therefore include nearly all of the population of England, and probably much of the populations of the rest of the UK and Eire, as well as many millions in the USA, former British colonies and Europe, so 100 million seems a conservative estimate. Documenting one's own descent from Edward III is, however, another matter!
I wrote to him and asked if his argument didn't apply equally well to Edward III's stablehand as well as Edward III. His answer was that it was critical to have a fairly large number of descendants in the first five generations. Leo van de Pas, the famed genealogist, listed 321 descendants in the fifth generation, of whom Millard counts about 245 as 'English' (though distinguishing English from Welsh and Irish nobles in this list is difficult).
He pointed out that Edward III's stablehand probably didn't have anywhere near 300 descendants in the fifth generation considering the medical care, nutrition, possibility of execution, that a man or his immediate descendants would expect. Queen Victoria had just over 300 descendants total in her first five generations of descent, but by the 19th century people were still having a lot of children (compared to the 20th), but they weren't as likely to die (even including the hemophilia deaths).
So the royalty of Edward III is not of paramount importance, but he lived better than most people. In addition there are very few records outside of families that are somehow connected to the royal family.
In the interest of wearing a belt and suspenders, I usually refer to the medieval monarchs, and not just Edward III. Some of our presidents were descended from Edward III, but others were descended from one of his immediate ancestors. Edward III was 8 generations descended from William the Conqueror.
my family has been traced back to at least the 900s A.D.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
