Degrees of Separation - Genealogical

Benedict Cumberbatch and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle are related Ancestry.com researchers recently announced.

Common Ancestor: John of Gaunt (1340-1399).
16th cousins, twice removed. 18 degrees of separation.

Media have reported John of Gaunt relationships before.
For example: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are 19th cousins.

If you have to go back to pre-Colonial aristocracy to find a common ancestor, the connection isn't noteworthy, in my opinion. 

Here are the fifty-one celebrities Ancestry’s We're Related app has currently alleged are related to me, sorted by degree of relationship. While I don't know for certain if it's true for everyone, for me at least, the app hasn't indicated any cousin relationship greater than 10th cousins, which limits cousins with a degree higher than 11 to mostly historical figures. (If a limit is coded for either cousin and/or times removed, 10 is psychologically a very likely choice.)

14 degrees (1)
• George Washington (6th cousin, 8x removed)

13 degrees (1)
• Benjamin Franklin (4th cousin, 9x removed)
• Jane Austen (7th cousin, 6x removed)

11 degrees (17)
• John Brown (4th cousin, 7x removed)
• Zachary Taylor (5th cousin, 6x removed)
• Helen Keller (8th cousin, 3x removed)
• Henry David Thoreau (8th cousin, 3x removed)
• Walt Disney (8th cousin, 3x removed)
• Ann Coulter (9th cousin, 2x removed)
• Avril Lavigne (9th cousin, 2x removed)
• Bill Clinton (9th cousin, 2x removed)
• Britney Spears (9th cousin, 2x removed)
• Carrie Underwood (9th cousin, 2x removed)
• Elon Musk (9th cousin, 2x removed)
• Jake Gyllenhaal (9th cousin, 2x removed)
• Johnny Depp (9th cousin, 2x removed)
• Kate Upton (9th cousin, 2x removed)
• Meghan Trainor (9th cousin, 2x removed)
• Peyton Manning (9th cousin, 2x removed)
• Willie Nelson (9th cousin, 2x removed)

10 degrees (19)
• Ralph Waldo Emerson (6th cousin, 4x removed)
• Rutherford B Hayes (6th cousin, 4x removed)
• Thomas Edison (7th cousin, 3x removed)
• Abraham Lincoln (8th cousin, 2x removed)
• Johnny Cash (8th cousin, 2x removed)
• Warren Buffet (8th cousin, 2x removed)
• Bill Gates (9th cousin, 1x removed)
• Harry S Truman (9th cousin, 1x removed)
• Matt Damon (9th cousin, 1x removed)
• Sarah Palin (9th cousin, 1x removed)
• Virgil Grissom (9th cousin, 1x removed)
• Christina Aguilera (10th cousin)
• Elvis Presley (10th Cousin)
• Harry Reid (10th Cousin)
• Jessica Simpson (10th cousin)
• Lady Gaga (10th cousin)
• Mitch McConnell (10th cousin)
• Ronald Reagan (10th cousin)
• Stephen King (10th cousin)

9 degrees (8)
• Mark Twain (6th cousin, 3x removed)
• Edgar Allan Poe (7th cousin, 2x removed)
• Barack Obama (8th cousin, 1x removed)
• Dolly Parton (8th cousin, 1x removed)
• George HW Bush (8th cousin, 1x removed)
• Mitt Romney (8th cousin, 1x removed)
• John Kerry (9th cousin)
• Marilyn Monroe (9th cousin)
• Meryl Streep (9th cousin)

8 degrees (1)
• Kevin Bacon

I do find it somewhat ironic that the celebrity of the closest degree of separation for me is Kevin Bacon. The We're Related app appears to lean slightly towards living celebrities. However, Patrick Swayze, if he gets added to the database, will be a 7th-degree relationship for me. (7th cousins)

While he wrote the screenplays for Murders in the Rue Morgue and Captains Courageous, among others, Dale Van Every may not quite have the celebrity status necessary to appear in this database. If he did, he'd only be five degrees separated. (3rd cousins, twice removed) It's possible my grandmother met her third cousin, but that's a different post.

Hillary and The Donald are 19th Cousins? Yawn.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are allegedly 19th cousins
Let's just say, even if true, this isn't very surprising.
The genealogists had to go back to the 1300s to find a common ancestor. (John of Gaunt, son of Edward III)

I believe I am 11th cousins, or closer, with, among others:

• Franklin Delano Roosevelt
• Ulysses Simpson Grant
• George Romney (and his son, Mitt Romney)
• John Kerry
• Anthony Perkins
• Cary Elwes
• Ann Bradford Davis
• Clint Eastwood
• Shirley Temple
• Debbie Reynolds (and her daughter, Carrie Fisher)
• Patrick Swayze
• William Holden
• Viggio Peter Mortensen, Jr.
• Ashley Judd
• Fred Rogers
• Lillian Gish
• Hart Crane
• Oliver Wendell Holmes
• Orson Scott Card
• Alfred Kinsey

I am happier about the relationship with certain individuals above than I am others.

Note: All of the above, and I, allegedly share a common ancestor, Thomas Stoughton (1557-1620)

If someone can trace their ancestry back to 17th century New England, it is very likely one can find similar relatives to the ones I listed. Maybe not the same ones, but similar ones.

There was a website that claimed Geoffrey Chaucer was my 18th Great Grandfather. They were almost definitely wrong. Lots of genealogical information on the internet is wrong. (I might be descended from William de la Pole, 1st Duke of  Suffolk, who married Chaucer's granddaughter, but the descent would be through his illegitimate offspring. However, there are other problems with the alleged descent.) I am confident I trace my ancestry back to the Stoughtons. I am not confident that all of the famous people listed above can do so. But others claim to have done the research. (Note: I am most confident about Patrick Swayze, since I have Swayze ancestors, as well. We're 7th cousins.)

Defining a genealogical relationship

I think the people at Geni have played one two many games of Degrees of Kevin Bacon and are confused about what it means to be related.

They say William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy are related.

This is not a genealogical relationship:

One might be able to call it a legal relationship. Though once you get beyond one set of in-laws I suspect that is questionable. And since there is one "ex" involved in the chain, the legal relationship that was created was also dissolved. Legally. Regardless, Geni isn't supposed to be a legal site. It's supposed to be a genealogy site.

If we accept legal relationships in genealogy, do we accept census definitions?

• Are POSSLQs relatives? The US Census Bureau created the term. A relationship created by the US Government has to be considered a legal relationship.
• Is a female who was in the same dormitory as me in college a POSSLQ? Were we related? Are we still related all these years later? Do I need to tell my wife?
• What if, instead of a dormitory, it was a group house?

Yes, my wife and I have adopted twin sons. I don't claim a genealogical relationship with them. A legal relationship. A loving relationship. Not a genealogical one. When they grow older they may well 'adopt' my ancestors as their own, as many adoptees do. But the relationship will be one of the heart, similar to when someone refers to a friend of the family as "Uncle Joe" or "Aunt Jane." One doesn't expect to see these relationships on a genealogy website either.

Making Sense About Making Sense

Image Source: Office of Biological and Environmental Research 
of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.

Sense about Science, a British charitable trust, has released a report entitled, Sense About Genetic Ancestry. The entire report is available as a free PDF download. Already several newspapers, such as the Telegraph, are stating that the report indicates DNA Tests are Meaningless. This is because the scientists refer to DNA testing as 'genetic astrology,' even though they are careful to say:

"There are credible ways to use the genetic data from mtDNA or Y chromosomes in individual ancestry testing, such as to supplement independent, historical studies of genealogy. If, for example, two men have identified – through historical research, possibly involving surnames – a common maleline ancestor in the sixteenth century, it would be reasonable to use their Y chromosome data to test this. There are some ancestry testing companies that offer this service.  

To answer a specific question about individual ancestry with any degree of confidence requires a combination of historical records and genetic information."

No genealogist is going to dispute that advice, but there is no credible scientific way to use astrology, which is where their metaphor breaks down, and leads to bad media reporting. It could be argued the language of the report is as sensationalistic as the language of the DNA companies which the scientists are complaining about.

The points the scientists raise are good ones. There probably are people taking the DNA tests without conducting historical record research, thinking the DNA test is all they need to do. And the report is meant for them, not for the genealogist who is taking the test with their eyes wide open about what the tests mean, and don't mean.

If you're unsure what the tests means, read the report. I'm no expert, but I have read a lot about DNA testing, and I don't think I disagree with any of their premises, though I do find fault with some of the conclusions.

Is Hillary Duff the Closest US Celeb to the Queen?

Many media sources have recently printed the following fact:

Hillary Duff is the closest US celebrity relative to the Queen. They share Edward III, the Queen's 18th great grandfather, as a common relative.

AZCentral and USA Today are two examples.  Both cite a study by FindMyPast.

I have a serious problem with this, because I have a difficult time imagining that every single US celebrity's genealogy was traced. But for that claim to be legitimately made, that's what would have had to be done. There are thousands of celebrities.

It's a perfect example of the Black Swan Fallacy.

Out of all the celebrity genealogies studied, Hillary Duff was most closely related, therefore she is the closest celebrity related to the queen. That is the logic being used, even though it doesn't sound as newsworthy reported in that manner.

How many genealogies were studied? That is information I have not been able to find in any news source.  (FindMyPast doesn't appear to have this in their list of press releases on their website.) There is a list of 20 'royal' celebrities mentioned, which means at least 20 were studied. But it could be any number equal to or greater than 20.

I thought to myself: Wouldn't it be funny if I could find a black swan? 

Could I find a celebrity that the study missed?  I didn't know how easy it would be, because it seems the study missed an entire category of US Celebrities.  Political Celebrities.

Celebrity is only defined as a famous or well-known person, that's why there are so many of them. Presidents are definitely celebrities, and I have a copy of Ancestors of American Presidents, written by Gary Boyd Roberts (2009 edition). There is a living US President who traces his ancestry back to Edward III as well, making them equal cousins with the Queen and Hillary Duff. James Earl Carter. (Therefore, his daughter Amy descends from Edward III as well, and some might consider her a celebrity.)

Franklin D. Roosevelt traced his ancestry back to James II of Scotland (The Queen's 14th great grandfather) and Truman to Robert III of Scotland (The Queen's 16th great grandfather) - unfortunately, none of their living descendants quite approach the name recognition for celebrity status.  Truman's daughter Margaret probably came the closest, though she passed away in 2008.

[Note: I used the sample Royal database that came with my iFamily genealogy software to calculate the Queen's relationship with James II and Robert III.]

Obama, Palin, Coulter, and Reid

According to the AP

A genealogist at the Utah-based Ancestry.com, Anastasia Tyler, said Obama and Palin are 10th cousins through a common ancestor named John Smith, a pastor and early settler in 17th-century Massachusetts. Obama is related to Smith through his mother, as is Palin, Tyler said.
...
And one other thing from Ancestry.com: It also found that Palin is distant cousins with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and conservative author and pundit Ann Coulter, through John Lathrop, who was exiled to the United States from England for being a pastor of an illegal independent church.

 The article points out a few other celebrity relationships.

Two major annoyances

1) Anastasia Tyler is NOT a genealogist.  She is a PR manager.
There is a difference, and since every article seems to call her a genealogist, I suspect she refers to herself as one in her press release. (Unsure, as the press release doesn't appear to be online.)

2) Never do these stories explain *how* the individuals are related beyond their common ancestor.  This makes the information completely useless to most people interested in family history.  It only is of interest to those who care which celebrities are related to which other celebrities, and don't care how.  Of course, it also means we can't check their work and prove them wrong.  Which might be why Ancestry.com doesn't release that information.

C-Span Video Library - Not all Politics

Earlier this week, C-Span uploaded almost its entire video library - covering 23 years - over 160,000 hours. All accessible online for free. [New York Times Article]

One could spend days (months, years) reliving history. C-Span isn't only Congressional Hearings, and I found several things that might be of interest to genealogists and family historians.

On February 10, 2009 Henry Louis Gates, Jr. spoke on his two books: Lincoln on Race and Slavery and In Search of Our Roots: How 19 Extraordinary African Americans Reclaimed Their Past (1 hour, 16 minutes)

On July 19, 2001 Professor Bryan Sykes spoke about his book: The Seven Daughters of Eve: The Science That Reveals our Genetic Ancestry (1 hour, 11 minutes)

On January 15, 2000 at the Key West Literary Seminar several author panelists "talked about their ancestors and their effect on their writing." (1 hour, 22 minutes)

On August 31, 2009 "The National Research Council and Institute of Medicine held a symposium to explore the health, policy, and ethical implications of direct-to-consumer genetic testing." (1 hour, 12 minutes)

Faces of America v Who Do You Think You Are

The first episode of NBC's Who Do You Think You Are has aired. Lots of Genea-bloggers are writing their posts, comparing it to PBS's Faces of America, which just completed.

Here's a quick comparison I've come up with:

Who Do You Think You Are: Genealogy Television
Faces of America: Family History Television

What's the difference?

A genealogist searches for vital records, trying to trace back the family tree as far as they can. A family historian is looking for the stories about who those ancestors were. How they lived their lives. An individual can be one, the other, or different parts of both. I think most of us who are obsessed with this pursuit are a little bit of both, but we may weigh the two differently.

I believe Henry Louis Gates Jr., the host (and one of the executive producers) of Faces of America, was attempting to tell the 'family history' of an entire nation by researching the ancestry of a handful of notable individuals. Since this was the purpose, the show didn't focus on the actual research. And the stories were organized, not by individual, but by time period. Each episode took us further back in time for all the subjects. This was confusing to some, because they were expecting a genealogy show, and that isn't what they saw. In the end, the series wasn't about the individuals, and how their ancestry defines them. It was about America, and how our shared ancestry defines us.

Who Do You Think You Are (WDYTYA) is focusing on each celebrity's pursuit of their own genealogy. Along the way, stories of their ancestors are told. However, the focus is on the records that trace the roots from one generation to the next. We see the celebrity travel from one location to the next, talking with local professional genealogists and historians, reacting to the records that are uncovered.

The first episode of WDYTYA was especially interesting to me, as my family background has similarities to Sarah Jessica Parker's. Her father is of Eastern European Jewish descent, and in the show she traces part of her mother's ancestry back to Salem, Massachusetts.

My paternal (and half of my maternal) ancestry is of Eastern European Jewish descent, but I can also trace my maternal ancestry back to Thomas and Katherine Stoughton, and thus to Salem. A first cousin many generations removed is William Stoughton, Chief Magistrate over the witch trials.

I will chime in and agree with something others are saying - and for which I see a very easy fix if the American edition of WDYTYA progresses to a second season. The length of time it takes to do this research isn't being portrayed accurately. Obviously, before Sarah Jessica Parker showed up at libraries or museums to talk with professional genealogists and historians, she contacted them in advance and gave them time to do some research before she arrived. But the viewer has no idea the number of days that have elapsed between each part of the journey. No additional scenes have to be added to the filming -- all we need is a date stamp displayed on the screen.

He should get a re-vote

Snoop Dogg is shocked by some DNA results taken for the Lopez Tonight show, which indicated he was 6% European, and 23% Native American.

"We got to have a re-vote, this ain't right," said the 38-year-old.

According to Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak, in a Huffington Post article from back in December, the test the Lopez Tonight show is using is outdated, and often inaccurate. There is a newer test that is more accurate. So, Snoop Dogg ought to get his re-vote. (As should Larry David, from back in December.)

***

I'm not too interested in this test. Instead of testing your mt-DNA or Y chromosome origins, it tries to compute the percentages of nationalities in your personal genetic makeup. As I understand it, even if 100% accurate (which even the newer test isn't), it's not testing your ancestral heritage. Some may recall from genetics discussions in school that due to recessive and dominant genes, you might get more than half of your genes from your mother or father. It's not an even split. Over the generations, the difference is multiplied. Whole parts of your family tree may be missing in your genes, but present in your siblings or cousins, while they're missing other parts.

Some may be interested in knowing which parts they got, but if I am correct in my understanding, it doesn't really interest me.

Our Name in History: Redux

Back in November of 2007, upon their release(*), I reviewed Ancestry.com's Our Name in History line of books. I summarized:

Someone who has spent significant time researching their family history already isn't likely to learn much, or get too many leads. In their introduction, Ancestry is careful to insert two disclaimers: 1) this information is about the surname in general, and not about the reader's specific ancestors. 2) data shouldn't be confused with fact. [I illustrated both disclaimers in my initial review.]

However, I feel this book would be a good first book for a son or grandson of high school/college age, or an adult friend who has shown some interest in genealogy, but doesn't quite know where to start. There is a section at the back that provides tips on research, and organization, along with some sample forms to get one started. The data that is presented should whet their appetite.

I noted that a quick random survey of surnames available on Amazon indicated that there was some variance in page length (as much as ten pages), likely due to how much data was found for particular surnames in the databases that Ancestry used for the books. I had purchased The Newmark Name in History, and said I wasn't interested in most of my other surnames, since I knew they would be very similar books. However, I was slightly curious about the Vanevery surname, since I knew the family had a different migration history which could yield different stock history pages.

The Van Every surname is also one of my few surnames where I am pretty certain everyone with the surname is related to me. It is believed all Van Everys are descended from two brothers Myndert and Carsten Frederickse (sons of Frederick Van Iveren). Therefore, I knew that the charts and graphs on name and occupation distribution would have a little more meaning for me.

Still, it was almost two years before I bought it.

I'm not going to repeat what I said in my first review. I will focus on the differences, as I find the differences are important to note for anyone considering purchase today.

There are only two pages in the Van Every book that weren't in the Newmark book, and that's because five Van Everys purchased some federal land between 1830 and 1888. None of these were my direct ancestors. However, there is a nice stock entry on the Homestead Act, Manifest Destiny, and Daniel Boone.

There at 10 pages in the Newmark book on the surname's history in England from 1851-1901, and only 2 in the Van Every book. For the obvious reason, there were no Van Everys in England. They did throw in 2 stock pages on the working conditions in England in 1881, even though they had no family statistics to attach that to. I'm not sure why they did this, except perhaps for padding.

Some of my disappointment I should have seen coming, as I could tell from the Amazon descriptions that the Van Every book was 6 pages shorter. With some thought, I should have figured out why.

My Van Every ancestors immigrated to America in the 17th century, but a large number of their descendants left America after the Revolutionary War. Even with just two surname books, I think I can say with relative certainty that all the books start with 1840, and the focus is on America, though they do have a sizable section on England, if applicable. Ancestry's Canadian resources have grown in the past two years, but all they had in 2007 may have been the 1911 census. So I did get a chart showing the 1911 name distribution - There were 98 families in Ontario, and 1-15 families in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Quebec. In comparison, there were only 3 Newmark families each in Quebec and Saskatchewan.

I'm not sure what the 19th century immigration data for the Van Every surname reflects. It could be families who were traveling instead of immigrating. Or perhaps some families returned to Europe for a couple generations instead of Canada. Or there is a third possibility that there are some Van Everys in America who aren't descended from the two brothers...perhaps related more distantly.

In summary, if one is evaluating which surnames to purchase a Name in History volume for, the paucity of information from Canada might play a role for some surnames.

(*)I know that the Amazon pages for the books say they were published in June/July of 2007. I also know the Amazon Press Release announcing them was on November 5th.

Illiterate Ancestors

As the Genealogue points out the UPI's headline for an article on Michelle Obama, "Future First Lady had an Illiterate Ancestor" is a little unfair. Every first lady in the history of this country probably had an illiterate ancestor.

I suspect the UPI may have thought "great great grandparent" was closer than many. However, I will point out that several of my paternal great great grandparents would likely have been recorded as illiterate, since they didn't know English. They may have been literate in Yiddish, or other tongues, but not English. My maternal great grandparents from Transylvania were similarly 'illiterate'. That is often the case with first generation immigrants to America, unless they come from an English speaking country.

The original Chicago Tribune story had a more appropriate headline. A first lady closely descended from slaves is newsworthy.

mtDNA Research

Using mitochondrial DNA, researchers are able to prove that Vikings conquered much of the British Isles. Viking Mice.

Baptisms by Proxy

Kimberly Powell and Craig Manson both discuss the Vatican’s recent announcement

In an effort to block posthumous rebaptisms by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Catholic dioceses throughout the world have been directed by the Vatican not to give information in parish registers to the Mormons' Genealogical Society of Utah.

I’m not Catholic, but I am Jewish, and way back in 2002, long before my recent obsession in genealogy, I wrote a post on the controversy of, as I saw it initially, “forced conversions” (Let me warn you, that some of what I wrote back then wasn't family appropriate, and I ask anyone who follows the link to read through the comments, because my thoughts and position changed as I learned more information.)

Now, post-onset of genealogical obsession, what are my thoughts?

1. I am very thankful for the LDS obsession with genealogy

2. Familysearch.org is a great website, and their new labs.familysearch.org appears as if it will be a magnificent contribution to many family historians.

3. Baptisms-by-proxy really could be called something better since the current term implies a conversion, when the Mormon teachings appear, from what I have read, to imply the proxy provides the soul a choice. Only if the soul accepts is the process completed. So anyone upset about seeing a family member on the list is, in a way, expressing doubt that their family member would remain faithful to the religion in which they lived their life.

4. I am confident that all religiously spiritual members of my family tree (and for that matter, the non-religiously spiritual too) were strong enough in their beliefs that their beliefs won’t change merely upon being given a choice in the afterlife. And if the soul makes the choice, it is still their choice. In my family tree I have Catholics, Methodists, Mennonites, and Jews. I don’t have a problem if any of my ancestors decide to switch over to Mormonism in the after-life.

I would like for them to somehow let me know, so I can record it in my database, but other than that, I’m fine with it.

What's in a name...

In 2005 a man tried to legally change his name to his wife's name, and was told he would have to pay four times what his wife would have to pay to change her name to his, as well as needing to advertise his name change in the newspaper, and get judicial approval. A lawsuit was filed in 2006, and finally, a judgment has been returned in his favor.

Michael Buday wanted to take his wife's surname after marriage but found that the DMV wouldn't issue him a new license in that name.

Women get to change their names all the time, and Buday figured it was his right to change his. Plus, he promised his new wife that he would take her name, Bijon, because their were no sons in her father's family to carry on the Bijon name.

So, what's in a name? A three-year legal battle for starters. Today, Buday, uh, Bijon was granted the right to become Michael Bijon. Strike up one for women's liberation.

...

Prior to his lawsuit, if Buday wanted to make the change to Bijon, he would have had to pay court fees of more than $300, advertise his plans in newspaper for four weeks and get judicial approval.

The traditional method of Bijon taking on Buday's name would have cost
somewhere between about $50 and $90. And that's it. No newspaper announcement, no judicial approval.

Royal Mystery Solved?

Bone shards identified as that of Crown Prince Alexei and Grand Duchess Maria ending century-long mystery of the whereabouts of the heirs to the Russian czar.

"It was 99.9 percent clear they had all been killed; now with these shards, it's 100 percent," said Nadia Kizenko, a Russian scholar at the University at Albany, State University of New York. "Those who regret this news will be those who liked the royal pretender myth."

Questions

1) Shards? How many shards? Too many to survive without? If a leg is injured, you can amputate the leg, but go on living.

2) At best, we really only know that the two heirs died and their remains ended up in the same forest where their parents died. Right? How does this end the mystery? Or at least, how does this end the myth?

Estate Planning tip from Ellen Goodman

I always thought that genealogy was for people whose blood ran blue. It was for folks who traced their ancestry to the Mayflower or the American Revolution, not those who came over in steerage one step ahead of the Cossacks.

Ellen Goodman writes a good column for the International Herald Tribune on some research she had done by the NEHGS, and what she learned.

She concludes:

There are other bits of paper in my genealogical binder. It's moving to see the name of the actual ship that brought my family to America and the naturalization papers that required them to "renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity" to the Russian czar, which they must have done with pleasure.

But what we really want from the generations past are not just the facts or the DNA.

We want the stories. Love, passion, success, disappointment, humanity. There may be no way to know - really know - their interior life. But how many of us would trade in the data for one good diary? Will we remember that in our own "estate planning"?

Genealogies of Biblical Proportions

There's a fun article in the Tampa Tribune on a Genealogy of Biblical Proportions. The article is about a genealogy discovered on Ancestry (in their Family Trees section)

If ever there was a tangled web, this was it. I got lost just looking at one line of it, but sure enough, it did go back to what someone has entered as "Joseph, father of Jesus" and "Mary the Virgin." This genealogy showed only one child of that union: Joseph Arimathea. Jesus was not mentioned, but perhaps the compiler of this lineage thought that went without saying.

This compiler did give a date of birth for Joseph as the year 100 in Bethlehem. The date alone makes the relationship questionable: How could Jesus have a brother born 100 years after he was? I am not a scholar of the Bible, but this was the first time I had seen Joseph Arimathea linked as the son of Joseph and Mary, although some have speculated that he might have been related to Jesus. According to medieval legend, Joseph took the Holy Grail containing the blood of Jesus to England.

Please, no more, we're done!

The compilers of Confucius' descendants have been working for ten years, and have finally decided they're finished.

"We have received more than 1.3 million new entries and already stopped soliciting new ones."

The database is closed, for now, and since this is only the fifth time they have ever updated the list, if you didn't get on it, maybe your great great grandchildren will.

Dilemma of National Proportions

If in November, the US election is between Obama and McCain all American descendants of William the Lion will be emotionally torn: which cousin will they vote for?.

If this genealogy is correct, William I was a descendant of Charlemagne. There are some who claim I am too. I don't necessarily believe these claims, but for the sake of this post, I will count myself a cousin of Obama and McCain.

I suspect if I really do go back to Charlemagne, I'm related to a few other important historical figures. Some have argued, that mathematically, everyone in the Western World is descended from Charlemagne *and* Muhammad. Of course, statistically speaking, there are 0 people in the US with the surname Barrymore. Comes as a surprise, doesn't it?

So if we hypothesize that the statistical calculations that went into computing the likelihood of the Barrymore Surname failed in that case, can we also hypothesize that the statistical calculations that computed everyone in the Western world are descended from Charlemagne and Muhammad are also possibly in error?

Our Name in History: A Review

It was the early-1930s, Great Depression, my grandfather and a couple friends hopped a train in St. Louis and rode it to California. Upon arriving in California, my grandfather saw a large building with the name Newmark on it. He had no idea he had relatives in California. So, naturally, he walked inside and asked for a job. And they told him to go away. They were probably nice about it, but it was the Great Depression, and there were no jobs available. Not even for potential distant cousins. No jobs were found, so the friends hopped another train, and rode back to St. Louis. My grandfather married my grandmother, had a successful career as a lawyer and a judge, and all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds (to quote Voltaire). However, when he heard about a family history book entitled, California Family Newmark, he bought a copy.

So when Ancestry recently announced they were publishing their "Our Name in History" series, I knew I had to buy a copy of "The Newmark Name in History," in memory of my grandfather. I knew the books had to be created by computer, pulling data from Ancestry's databases to create charts and graphs and mixed together with stock text. But there was still a chance the charts and graphs could be interesting, as well as the stock text.

So before I get into the full review, you're probably wanting to know what I think:
Q: Is the book worth $29.95?
A: It depends.

Someone who has spent significant time researching their family history already isn't likely to learn much, or get too many leads. In their introduction, Ancestry is careful to insert two disclaimers: 1) this information is about the surname in general, and not about the reader's specific ancestors. 2) data shouldn't be confused with fact. I will illustrate both of these disclaimers in the review.

However, I feel this book would be a good first book for a son or grandson of high school/college age, or an adult friend who has shown some interest in genealogy, but doesn't quite know where to start. There is a section at the back that provides tips on research, and organization, along with some sample forms to get one started. The data that is presented should whet their appetite.

Details:

The Newmark Name in History is 94 pages. When I browsed through the different surnames at Amazon, the longest volumes were 98 pages, so there is some information other surnames have, that the Newmark surname doesn’t. My guess is that since Newmarks appear in the United States about 1840, the missing 4 pages cover the years prior to that. However, 4 pages seems short to do that in. It is possible there is some variance in volumes, and more material was provided on the 19th century in mine than there would be for surnames that had a presence in America in earlier times.

I do have ancestors who were here during the Revolutionary War; the Vaneverys. Interestingly, the Vanevery Name in History is a shorter volume than The Newmark Name. My suspicion is that several pages on 19th century immigration are missing. It’s good that there is variance; but it means I can’t give a complete review from one volume. But still, I think I can give you a good idea of what you will receive.

Stock Material

There are a lot of pages devoted to history accounts, from immigrant journals, to discussions on name changes, Ellis Island, the Westward Expansion, medical advances in the delivering of babies, letters from soldiers, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Literacy rates, and other topics. Mostly devoted to America, but there was a section on England too (perhaps only because the Newmark surname had a British presence) Working Conditions in Britain in the 1880s, Queen Victoria’s death, and a general article on immigration from England to the US. Those who are interested in history will probably find the articles interesting. It does provide a good illustration of the lives people led during the various decades. (Each individual article is only a page in length at most.)

Pages 78-85 are a section devoted to a five-step process for researching, and organizing your family tree. Following this is a blank sample Family Tree Chart, Family Group Sheet, and Research Log. Then there is a glossary of Family History terms, and a list of sources, including a lot of websites. This would have been the most natural section to push Ancestry, but they only include it in a list of other websites, including FamilySearch, CyndisList, FamilyHistory, Rootsweb, USGenWeb, and VitalRec. I was impressed by, and appreciated the restraint they showed in advertising their website.

Surname Specific material

Charts/Graphs (extensive list, but not complete list)
Place Names (Buildings and Streets with the surname in them. Hopefully, if your surname is Main, they don’t include a complete list.)
Places of Origin (pulled from passenger lists)
Ports of Departure
Most Common Ship Names
Ten Earliest Immigrants, with arrival date, departure port, and ship name (Maybe you’ll get lucky, I didn’t)
A graph charting the number of arrivals per year from 1823 to 1943
Distribution of Households in 1840, 1851 (England), 1880, 1881 (England), 1901 (England), 1911 (Canada), 1920, 2000 (source for 2000: Phone Directories)
Literacy distribution by age in the 1920s
Distribution (by state) of WWI Draft Registrants, WWII Army Enlistment
Occupations in 1880 (US), 1881 (England)
Most Popular Given Names by Decade (1880s, 1900s, 1920s, 1940s, 1960s)
Home Ownership rates in the 1920s by age
Graph of Life Expentancy by year (1939-1999) versus general public
Most Common Causes of Death
Most Common Cemeteries for Veterans Burials

There is also the occasional ‘silly data’ such as the most common day of the week for a birth or a death in your family. I guess there are people who might think that’s significant.

There are times when it becomes painfully obvious that a computer produced the volume instead of a human. For example, for “Places of Origin for Newmark Immigrants” the chart shows that most immigrants (38) came from Russia. So they include below the chart a generic paragraph about generic Russian immigration. “The first Russians in the United States were explorers from Siberia that settled in Alaska in 1784…The large number of Russian immigrants declined in 1952 when the Soviet government began threatening those who tried to emigrate.” However, 37 immigrants came from England, 8 came from Great Britain, and 5 came from London. If a human had created the book, there would be a paragraph on immigration from England. However, ironically, I know that a good number of Newmarks only stopped briefly in England (my family was there for 15 years), and really originated in Poland or Russia. So in actuality, while the data indicates the majority came from England, the majority really didn’t originate there. Similarly, in 1880, out of the top five occupations for Newmarks are “Keeping House” and “Keeps House”. The sixth most common occupation got pushed off the list by the duplication.

In summary, I don’t think I have any new leads for research (except the long list of websites in the back pages under “Selected Sources”). I’m not disappointed. Some of the information is at least fun to have. There is a significant amount of good reading material about life in America. And the section on research and organization could be beneficial for any beginner. (Which I still am.) These books appear to be meant for the newcomer to genealogy and family history. They’re meant to ignite the spark.

I don’t have a large interest in buying a copy for any of my other surnames, since I am almost certain most of the stock material will be repeated, and I don’t expect to learn anything truly essential to my research. However, I might get a copy of the Vanevery volume since they immigrated in the 17th and 18th centuries, and while I don't know for certain, there might be some good articles on that time period. There also could be more information on Canada, since that's the part of my family that were Loyalists and they fled to Canada for a couple generations after the Revolutionary War.

Instructions on how to add text to, and otherwise alter Amazon images as done at top of entry.