Replies

My greatest frustration in doing genealogy was the discovery that many (most?) people doing it have very low standards of evidence. Much of what's been done is useless, as it's based on wishful thinking, guesswork, etc., seemingly fueled by things mentioned in the article. A friend who was into genealogy way back when called them "royalty hounds" ...I bet there's a common term for them--people who care more about making interesting or more numerous connections than doing quality research to discover the truth.

In every election year, there's an article about how this or that candidate is descended from a King of England, say Henry II or Edward I.

But that's one of the least interesting things one could find out about one's ancestry.

It would be a little surprising if you didn't find a king when you went far enough back.

It's the stuff that happened closer to our own time -- or at least in our own country -- that's more interesting.

That the Bushes are descended from a medieval English king is less interesting than that their ancestor is the man, Samuel Prescott, who finished Paul Revere's ride when Revere was stopped by the British.

It doesn't make them better people, anymore than John Kerry's descent from Governor Winthrop of the Massachusetts Bay Colony makes him a good person or McCain's from a captain on George Washington's staff makes him worth more than other Americans, but it does bring history a little closer to us.

But even if you don't find ancestors like these, the search can still be worthwhile.

Two things about American genealogy ~ the earliest generations came more from the noble classes than the commoners ~ even if they got here in chains.

Take a good look at the Bill of Rights some time. It's all about "noble privilege" except that the assumption is everybody is entitled to it.

The other thing is that a vast number of the earliest ancestors left no records other than their name in a list in a church. Illiteracy was rampant.