One World Tree

I've had some fun before posting strange relationships from Ancestry's OneWorldTree

Lucille Ball being the grandmother of her husband, Desi

Catherine the Great being the 19th great grandmother of Henry David Thoreau (even though less than 100 years separate their births.)

But doing some 'fun' research for a friend I came across something new.  This is the supposed relationship of my friend's ancestor Aaron Baldwin, with Henry David Thoreau.  (One line of the genealogy chart ran off the page -- Aaron and Henry would have been next.)

If you click through the empty boxes, you get a message something like, "this person doesn't exist in One World Tree."

Apparently, OneWorldTree allows you to say Person A is the grandparent of Person B, and indicate that a non-existent person fits inbetween.  And as you can see on the right, they also allow "great-grandparent."  I wonder what maximum number of 'missing steps' are permitted.

(Note: Aaron Baldwin's middle initial is most definitely M, but the parents of Aaron P on OneWorldTree match my research.)

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.

Heavy Sigh

I have managed to find a source discrediting my Chaucer descent this evening.

According to "Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families" by Douglas Richardson, 2004, p. 55-56 (and wikipedia): Joan de la Pole was not the daughter of William de la Pole and Alice Chaucer. She was the illegitimate child of de la Pole and allegedly a nun named Malyne de Cay. This source then matches the OneWorldTree descent down through Margaret Harcourt. And I trust my ascent up through Joanna Chamberlain. (see previous entry) So there's only three unproven links to a direct descent from "someone mentioned in a Shakespearean play" - but that takes longer to say and explain than 'Chaucer'.

Back to more serious pursuits...

Another President!

Too many of these posts and people will be paraphrasing line 230 from Act III Scene II of Hamlet.

However, while this isn't the reason I am researching my family history, I believe I have found support for at least one more, and I'm close to another of the 'famous people' Ancestry's One World Tree claims my grandmother, Myrtle Van Every, was related to. I've had fun laughing at some of the impossible family trees the OneWorldTree software draws, but the lousiest ball player will occasionally hit the ball.

(And researching both hits and misses can result in extending lines further back)

Alas, the hits are not necessarily the hits I'd have chosen.

According to this Genforum post, the book "Ancestors of American Presidents" claims the Eddye family is related to three Presidents: Ford, Benjamin Harrison, and Fillmore. I already knew about Harrison since the Van Every's intersect slightly more recently than the Eddyes. There are a couple unproven generations on my grandmothers side still for Fillmore. But if the book is accurate, Ford was 'definitely' my mother's 8th cousin. (I bet she wishes she knew this when he was alive.)

The book was researched by Gary Boyd Roberts, who seems to have some credentials. Senior Research Scholar for the New England Historic Genealogical Society sounds impressive. Since he seems to be known as a scholar, I expect the book to cite sources. It's out of print, though. I can buy it at Amazon for $300. Or I can browse through it at either the St. Louis County or St. Louis City library next time I go there. I think I'll do that. It's supposed to contain the ancestries of all the Presidents (Since it was published in 1995, it might include Clinton, I'm not sure.)

Find a library near you that has it

Mea Culpa

If The Genealogue is correct and WorldConnect isn’t a Primary Source…-- and I am inclined to agree --OneWorldTree definitely isn’t.

However, under the philosophy of visiting the sins of the parents unto the children…if you aren’t a fan of the holiday that is today…you can either blame me, Patrick Swayze, some of our kin, or perhaps a few other individuals. (Of course, if you like the holiday, we get the credit too, right?)

There is a theory that the only reason today is associated with Cupid is due to a poem Geoffrey Chaucer wrote.

In 1381, Chaucer was busy composing a poem in honor of the arranged marriage between England's Richard II and Anne of Bohemia. This was a very big deal indeed, and Chaucer was looking for just the right saint to honor on May 3, the day Richard II signed the papers of engagement to his Bohemia beauty.

His search ended, Kelly surmises, when Chaucer learned that a Saint Valentine of Genoa had an honorary feast day on May 3. Perfect! So he wrote the poem "The Parliament of Fowls" in the couple's honor.

"The Parliament of Fowls" literally means "the meeting of birds," says Kelly. "Chaucer dreamed up the idea that all birds chose their mates on May 3rd," he says.

After Chaucer's death in 1400, Valentine's Day celebrations got pushed back to February.

Why exactly is unclear, however, if you forgot about today, and someone is upset, perhaps you can use this information to give yourself a few extra months.

A President and a King

I've written posts before mocking some of the weird relationships Ancestry's OneWorldTree generates - probably the best example is how Catherine the Great is the 19th-great grandmother of Henry David Thoreau (with only 100 years separating them - generations averaging 5 years - the pedigree has to be seen to be believed.)

As Ancestry admits:

Keep in mind--The possible relationship information we show is only as accurate as the member-contributed family tree information found in OneWorldTree. We are unable to verify whether these results are in fact accurate. Of course, that's part of the fun of family history--digging into the research.

I won't argue with that. It is fun. When I first discovered that my maternal grandmother allegedly was related to such diverse individuals as Flannery OConnor, Werner Von Braun, George W. Bush, Ray Bradbury, Elvis Presley, Amelia Earhart, Shirley Temple, JP Morgan, and to top it off, a direct descendant of Geoffrey Chaucer, I didn't know quite how to respond. One relative, when I mentioned it, came up with a one-word colorful description of what he thought of it all - bullshit.

I wasn't quite ready to dismiss all of it. I knew her ancestry went back to 18th century New York, and once you're in that early colonial melting pot, a lot of families are intermingling. It's not impossible to imagine a handful of the proposed lineages were actually correct. The question was which ones were true, and which ones were like Thoreau and Catherine?

Since then I have discovered my connection with the Sweezey/Swayze clan is rather well documented. Tonight I returned to OneWorldTree and started going through the 35 famous people they list, and discovered that a couple of the descendancies come through the Sweezeys. I was able to "confirm" the connections at Sweezey.net. Browsing through the site, and seeing notes on various entries, they appear to be concerned with accuracy.

So I feel fairly certain that US President, Benjamin Harrison (through the wife of William Henry Harrison) is on my tree. Fifth cousins, three times removed. Elvis Presley may also be my cousin, but he doesn't appear at Sweezey.net, and the Sweezeys don't appear on the Presley genealogy at Genealogy.com. There is one link in his OneWorldTree ancestral chain that is questionable. A recent unofficial genealogy that purports to go back fifty generations contains the missing link, but it's the only place I've found it (besides OneWorldTree) and it seems of questionable veracity.

So right now, with 35 data points, it seems OWT is somewhere between 2.8% and 5.7% accurate. Maybe over time I'll discover it has a better record.

Patrick Swayze - direct descendant of ....

This morning I found Patrick Swayze's alleged genealogy, and confirmed that the Swayze in my tree intersected with his tree. I haven't done the math yet¹ to see what number cousin we are. I have two left feet though. The only dirty dancing I can do is with iambics, and even then, I'll frequently step on a foot.

We allegedly intersect at Judge Samuel Swayze (1688-1710).

Judge Samuel Swayze's parents were Joseph Swayze and Mary Betts. Whoever entered the Swayze tree doesn't carry Mary Betts' line back further than Mary's mother Joanna Chamberlain Betts, however, Joanna is (according to One World Tree) a direct descendant of Chaucer. Which would make cousin Patrick one too.

¹7th

I may not like, Bush, but...

I don’t believe that the sins of a First cousin, five times removed should be visited on someone, even if they happen to share your name.

source.

I certainly don’t believe that the sins of a tenth cousin should be visited on someone. As that describes W’s relationship to me, according to One World Tree. (Have I neglected to mention this before when talking about Chaucer?)

How Catherine the Great is the great(19) grandmother of Henry David Thoreau

Here is the direct lineage of Catherine the Great to Henry David Thoreau — according to OneWorldTree

I don’t see any issues with it - do you?

Sure … 19 generations is a lot to go through between 1729 and 1817, but here is how it works:

Catherine the Great
(1729-1796)

Paul I Romanov
(1754-1801)

Marie Pavlovna Romanov
(1786-1859)

Marie Von Saxe Weimar Eisenach

(1808-1877)

Friedrich Karl Hohenzollern
(1828-1885)

Louise Margaret
(1860-1917)

Patricia Helen Windsor
(1886-1974)

Alexander Arthur Ramsey
(1919-2000)

Agnes Ramsay
(1372-)

William Urquhart
(1411-1475)

Alexander Urquhart
(1445-1503)

Agnes Urquhart
(1885-1956)

Hugh Rose
(1505-1597)

Janet Rose
(1537-)

Mark Dunbar
(-1642)

Ninian Dunbar
(1575-1693)

Robert Dunbar
(1630-1693)

Peter Dunbar
(1668-1719)

Samuel Dunbar
(1704-1786)

Asa Dunbar
(1745-1787)

Cynthia Dunbar
(1787-1872)

Henry David Thoreau
(1817-1862)

Of course, as I’ve said before, when discussing the case of Lucy and Desi, this doesn’t mean I’m not descended from Chaucer. Some of the linkages they come up with are bound to be correct — so mine could be one of those.

Relationships

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, I think I'm descended from Chaucer.

I was asked if I’ve verified this, and I admitted, I’m not sure how to. One idea was to find out which of my famous cousins are related to each other according to this website, and then hope others might be intrigued and do the research on them. Because I certainly don’t want to do the legwork when all it can do is disprove the theory, because I already believe it.

So in that regard, according to OneWorldTree:

Emily Dickinson is the 7th great grandchild of Alice Lambert who lived between 1554-1620.
Henry David Thoreau is the 6th great grandchild of Alice Lambert.

Shirley Temple is the 8th-great grandchild of Elizabeth Stoughton, who lived between 1600-1647
Ray Bradbury is the 9th-great grandchild of Elizabeth Stoughton.

I should also mention that Shirley Temple, according to OneWorldTree is the 15th great grandchild of Chaucer, and cousin to O Henry and Walt Whitman, neither of whom are my cousins, so it doesn’t help me or hurt me if you prove or disprove that. I’m not descended from Shirley, but we are supposedly cousins, which makes sense, if we are both directly descended from Chaucer.

Interestingly, their “Famous Relative” script only works it’s way up from the first person, because when I ask for famous relatives of Chaucer, it comes up blank. It should at least list Shirley.

While it doesn’t help me, I’d love to know if Humphry Bogart’s 7th great grandfather is really John Alden of Mayflower fame.

Or if Henry David Thoreau is really descended from Romanovs, and is first cousins (22 times removed) with Empress Anna of Russia

One obvious OneWorldTree FUBAR

Lucille Ball is listed as the grandmother of her husband, Desi.

When you look at the details, it inserts someone inbetween them, and all it says is “Living ___” where ___ is a last name that’s irrelevant, but obviously someone had a little fun and said that Lucille was their mother, and Desi their son. It’s kind of like WikiAncestry, but there’s no one correcting the vandals.

That doesn’t disprove anything though.

Direct Descendent of Greatness

Well…having exhausted research on one branch of my family tree (my father’s), I went to my mother’s. Her family, especially the ones that came over from Holland in the 1600-1700s have done a great job of tracking their ancestry.

Ancestry.com has this thing called One-World-Tree, where everyone enters their trees, and thus there’s a chance of trees combining.

I found my mother’s mother on this One-World-Tree and then asked them the question: Any Famous Relatives?

I nearly fainted with the results.

Presidents: Ford, Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, Fillmore
Entertainers: Elvis Presley, Shirley Temple, Humphrey Bogart
Writers: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Emily Dickinson, Mark Twain, Ray Bradbury

But all of these are distant cousins, several times removed. Fun, but not the cherry at the top of this Sundae.

My 18th Great Grandfather (YES! 18th!) lived from 1343 - 1400. He wrote poetry. I’m going to say no more. You can look it up on Google. 1343 1400 poet. Top results. There was only one person living from 1343-1400 writing poetry that I would be this excited about anyway. Yes. Him!

I know this is completely dependent upon the fact that everyone involved entered their family tree correctly. Shush!

I am SO including this in every bio I send to editors from now on!