Genealogy and history

Question

Sometimes I get the feeling that most people consider those of us who are interested in genealogy as at least somewhat eccentric, and genealogy as a frivolous pastime. But I came across something this past week that makes me think that historians should pay more attention to genealogy than they do. 

Case in point: Captain Sir Murray Maxwell's Wikipedia entry says, in part:

Maxwell's lungs were badly damaged; he never fully recovered from the injury, and never again became involved in politics, instead returning to the Navy in 1821 as captain of HMS Bulwark, the flagship of Admiral Sir Benjamin Hallowell at Chatham.

and Admiral Sir Benjamin Hallowell Carew's Wikipedia entry says, in part:

They were the parents of Captain Charles Hallowell-Carew R.N., who married Mary Murray Maxwell, daughter of Sir Murray Maxwell and great granddaughter of Sir Alexander Maxwell, 2nd Bt., of Myrton Castle, Wigtownshire.

But Maxwell's entry doesn't mention that his daughter married the son of the admiral under whom he had served, nor does Hallowell Carew's entry mention that the father of his daughter-in-law had once served under him. 

I keep bumping into cases like this, especially in Navy families, where the children of two men who served together end up marrying one another, and thus you get naval "dynasties" with several generations all entering the service.

But historians, while occasionally referring to such familial links, don't seem to put much effort into researching them. It seems to me that the interrelationship of family relationships and work relationships is virtually ignored.

Greg

 

Comments

Unfortunately this is a two-way street: Too many genealogists disregard history in their focus on finding parents, spouses, siblings. Just think of the complex history of Central Europe.

---

Great point and excellent post, Greg.

---

Seems to me that if you do the genealogy well then you end up writing history. Difference is History tends to study notables. Modern genealogy studies all sorts of folk.

---

I'm sure that is true for most of us but I don't think you would realise that from the posts on here. So many are to do with ancestral lines from Magna Carta Barons or varied Plantagenet's 

I don't actually like the term genealogy, I prefer family history .I really can't see the point of a list of someone begat someone.. 

 It takes far more digging  to find something about the peoples lives but to me is much more interesting You can't attempt to understand or attempt to explain some of the events in  their lives without some knowledge of the wider National history. 

As to whether historians ignore the non nobles, I've just registered for an MA  in history .The pre course reading is a book which describes the inhabitants of three adjoining parishes in Kent.

  I considered doing an advanced genealogy diploma from The Institute of Heraldic and Genealogical Studies (the choice  of suitable courses by distance learning is quite limited) I was totally put off by the example exam paper which focused on producing a pedigree of an arms bearing family.

Answer 1

Greg, I agree.  I think this is an underplayed strength of Wikitree.  

Interestingly, I just read this G2G post which links to a site exploring Historical Social Relationships.

http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/187705/six-degrees-of-francis-bacon.

I think really good Historians do explore Family Relationships and that is where I think Wikitree can excel, just as you have described.