Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-12 > 0977969585

From: "JG" <>
Subject: Re: Bush descent from royalty
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 02:13:05 GMT

Does anyone have the descent of G.W.'s mother, Barbara Pierce? I read on the
web she is a descendant of US President Franklin Pierce but can't find
anything further back than her grandfather Jonas Pierce. And was US
president Franklin Pierce descended from the gentry or nobles of England or
anywhere else in France? He was a New Englander, thus another tie-in with
the comments below.

Thanks & regards


<> wrote in message news:91ls32$99e$
> (Stewart Baldwin) wrote:
> >
> > Actually, this is somewhat misleading. DOWNWARD social mobility has
> > been common in most societies, even when upward social mobility was
> > rare. The younger sons of gentry often had to take a step down in
> > social class. The reasons are pretty straightforward. If a member of
> > the gentry had more than one son, then primogeniture would give most
> > of the wealth to the eldest, and the younger sons would have to make
> > do with less. Even if primogeniture was not in effect, and the wealth
> > was divided, then all the sons would have less, unless they managed to
> > be lucky enough to marry an heiress. This kind of downward social
> > mobility (leading to many noble descents for "common" folk) is going
> > to be common in virtually any society in which large families are the
> > norm.
> >
> > Stewart Baldwin
> I have definitely found this to be true in a number of countries. In
> researching my ancestry in France, Belgium and Sweden, Ive found that
> my immigrant ancestors have descents from gentry in all three of those
> countries. One can see the gradual social descents, from landed gentry
> with coats of arms, going down to common farmers. The problem with many
> of those other countries is that the church registers usually begin
> about 1660, if not later, as compared to England, where many registers
> begin in the mid to late 1500s. Thats an average difference of about
> 100 years, which means a possibility of finding eight times as many
> ancestors in England.
> A big problem in England is finding maternal ancestries, since the
> baptisms often do not give much about the mothers identity, as compared
> to continental Europe, where the mother's maiden name is given most of
> the time. European records often give clues to where people where born,
> as compared to England, where people could migrate about without any
> clues given in the records.
> The US has some great difficulties in researching, as compared to most
> other countries. In many regions here, there was no established system
> of keeping vital records, and many places did not keep wills at an
> early date. Another very big problem is finding the origins of various
> colonists. One cannot hope to trace lines back into the middle ages
> unless a country of origin can be found (thats obvious, right??)
> One of the reasons why so many people in the US can trace back to
> English nobility is because of the immense volume of work that has been
> done on early colonists. One example is Henry Waters' "Genealogical
> Gleanings in England" which is 1000 pages worth of summarized wills
> from the Prerogative Court of Canterbury - and it was done 100 years
> ago!!
> Also, the established periodicals in this country are a great
> assistance to researchers. Compare "The American Genealogist" with the
> English publication "Genealogist's Magazine". You will find that the
> former is almost entirely composed of compiled genealogies and new
> discoveries, whereas the latter seems to discuss methodology.
> With the use of the periodicals, even someone with only 5% New England
> ancestry can open a magazine and find new ancestors thanks to someone
> elses work. How often does that happen in England or other countries???
> Leslie
> Sent via

This thread: