GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-12 > 1040339541
From: "Mike Summerer" <>
Subject: Re: Question on validity
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 23:12:21 GMT
References: <F91dcx3Vp20N39x6HHG0000cd37@hotmail.com> <MCEMJEDENIHEFICCLPEEAELBCPAA.firstname.lastname@example.org>
As far as researching in Italy, it all depends on if the records survived.
As part of my one-name study on Summerer, I've traced back to
16th Century in Sesto/Sexten in Northern Italy.
In Franconia & the Upper Palatinate the trail gets blocked during
the Thirty Years War.
""Gordon Banks"" <> wrote in message
> Actually, most Mormons nowadays are more recent converts, so reflect the
> general population. Those of us who come from 19th century Mormon
> have predominantly two differing types of ancestry:
> 1) New England origins who joined the church between 1830 and 1840
> 2) British or Scandanavians who joined in the home countries between 1840
> and about 1880, when there was a huge missionary effort in those
> and then emigrated to Utah.
> With the second type of ancestors (mine are English), we run into exactly
> the same problems as the people on GENBRIT do. These ancestors are what
> Gary Boyd Roberts calls "artisnal", mainly tradespeople (printers,
> umbrellamakers, watchmakers, weavers) and farmers. These lines peter out,
> just like our British cousins find, around 1650-1750, due to lack of
> We are extraodinarily lucky to have such good records in New England (the
> South isn't so good, unfortunately) that we can find a few (in my case,
> one) ancestors that can be linked back into medieval times. I don't hold
> much hope of ever being able to do that with any of my ancestors who lived
> in 19th century Britain.
> (Of course, it could be worse...my wife is 1/4 Italian, and we have had a
> devil of a time getting anything on her ancestors prior to when they
> -----Original Message-----
> From: brad verity [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 11:37 AM
> Subject: Re: Question on validity
> >From: Renia <>
> >I don't think they are saying that at all. I think what they're asking,
> >how come Americans with proven genealogies to the 17th century can so
> >more easily link themselves to aristocratic ancestors than the average
> >British person can? There are only two answers to this: either, a)
> >Americans are all aristocrats or B) there's something wrong with their
> >approach to the British end of genealogy.
> Chris and Renia,
> This is an interesting topic. Of course Americans aren't all aristocrats.
> The majority of Americans I know are descended from folks who immigrated
> the States in the 20th century. But I've only lived in Los Angeles and
> York. Americans have a huge ethnic diversity amongst them, and I'm
> to bet that 90% of Americans who descend from 20th century (and even late
> 19th century) immigrants do not have a descent from Edward I of England.
> The other factor that must be emphasized when speaking of Americans and
> genealogy is the Mormon faith. Genealogy is exalted, encouraged and
> preserved (thank goodness, as I use the LDS library in Los Angeles
> frequently) within that community. I'm going to take another rough guess
> and say that at least 75% of Americans who pursue genealogy are Mormon.
> Today, American Mormons are as ethnically diverse as the general
> but if you are an American Mormon descended from 19th century American
> Mormons that's not the case. Your Mormon ancestors were of pioneer stock
> from particular regions with much intermarriage amongst them. In many
> genealogical respects (not class, though) these families can be compared
> Tudor gentry families in the sense that there is good record preservation
> and a finite number of them.
> >No, what they're saying here is, that it is so much more difficult, and
> >much more of a genealogical challenge to compile a pedigree on humble
> >ancestors than it is to compile aristocratic pedigrees, which are often
> >taken from material in printed sources (CP, fines, etc). It is difficult
> >for an American to go rummaging around in a local British record office,
> >obviusly, but such a rummage, from RO to RO is much of the challenge with
> >British genealogy.
> I'm not of Mormon descent. My family is Jewish, and I'm the only one in
> interested in genealogy. But my agnatic line, the Veritys, are somewhat
> unique in that they lived in England in the late 19th/early 20th century
> (from Lithuania before that, though no one remembers what the surname was
> there, so I'm stuck). My great-great grandfather, Goodman Verity (how
> British can you get with that name - talk about assimilation) was a cantor
> at the New Briggate Synagogue in Leeds, England, and lived with his wife
> very young children at Whitechapel in East London from 1885 to 1890 (when
> Jack the Ripper was running rampant).
> I've rummaged around at the records in the Family History Centre in London
> (in Islington suburb, if I remember right) on my trip to England last
> Finding the birth record of my grandfather and the birth and marriage
> records of his parents and their siblings was just as exciting (and more
> in a personal way) than researching medieval genealogy/history (which is
> another hobby).
> >Everyone is prone to a stroke of luck. Perhaps you come across just one
> >lab's great-grandmother, who was at the lower end of the gentry. With
> >further luck, you might find more of her ancestors at the higher end,
> >linking into the old aristocracy. But it would be comparitively unusual.
> >What is so amazing about American genealogies, is that so many Americans
> >seem to have so many Aristocratic ancestors. It just goes against
> >statistical probability, it seems to me.
> Not if you look at the fact that most Americans pursuing genealogy are
> Mormon. A good percentage of present-day American Mormons can trace
> descent from 19th century American Mormon pioneers, several of whom traced
> back to the 17th century colonial gateway ancestors that Plantagenet
> Ancestry covers.
> I've mentioned before that England has 15th century gateway ancestors that
> link localized gentry into royal ancestry. Elizabeth (Percy), Lady
> Clifford, Hotspur's daughter, had descendants that spread out into more
> a dozen Northern gentry families within 4 generations. Same with Margaret
> (Bohun), Countess of Devon - within 100 years her Courtenay descendants
> intermarried with dozens of Devon/Cornwall gentry families.
> I guess the problem is getting the gentry link. Though some may have
> married daughters into the merchant classes, it didn't happen often. They
> married within their class until probably the 19th century. But how many
> Brits who have a Victorian-era gentry ancestor are actively tracing their
> genealogy? They certainly don't need to research - it's all
> and readily available. Just pick up Burke's Peerage.
> Cheers, -----Brad
> STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
|Re: Question on validity by "Mike Summerer" <>|