My wife and I have a GED on Ancestry.com, which I tried to upload here but I guess it's too big now. So, I manually created the first 5-10 generations here, and am enjoying carefully tying into the universal family tree. :-)
If you have an Ancestry account, feel free to peruse us there; as 98% of the individuals on our tree there, are NOT yet transplanted into Wikitree.
At this point our GED is about 20k individuals, about ~20% lineal, going back 30+ generations on the Anglo-Norman/Franco-German lines. I am not satisfied with all of the data quality however, but it has value even if contains errors. That tree branched out enough, I've had "The Epiphany" that we're all cousins to some degree. Too bad we don't have better records from antiquity. And some more-modern nations.
Cousin-Bait family names from my "All American Mutt" pedigree, going back four generations, covering the "classic" period of immigration to North America:
I'm a descendant of John Webster, first governor of colonial Connecticut. That was a lucky break from a genealogy perspective as their line was fertile and well documented. We weren't so lucky with the "first Taylor" whose family origins in England before the revolutionary war remain unclear, aside from baptism and marriage records in Felsham, Suffolk.
He and his descendants are buried in the old Taylor family cemetery near Hero, PA (named for his grandson Jesse who was first the local boy killed in the US civil war). If your ancestors are buried there too, we're probably related:
Here are some major family names from prior generations, flowing back from colonial New England to Anglo-Norman era:
And for my wife Jennifer, first the "recent" grand-parent arrivals to the United States:
She is a direct descendant of Charles St-Etienne de La Tour, governor of the French Acadian colony in the 1600s; and I look forward to learning much more about her Irish ancestry from here on Wiki Tree. Some of our living relatives are already here. :-)
Within the French quadrant of my wife's family, there are more ancient families... you know how it goes, when you find a particular line that goes way back, it just goes and goes right back through the Crusades:
I mention these medieval names because I am VERY disinterested in trying to DIY research foggy medieval bloodlines. Which stump and divide even the pro-est pros. For this reason, I would like to bolt our family tree onto well-researched work done here collaboratively, so I can focus on work nobody else is doing.
If somebody wants to "sponsor" me while I carefully stitch in our family tree (Ancestry.com GED) to your wiki, I'm happy to have a mentor. I could especially use advice about which GEDCOM editor(s) makes it easier to shatter a huge file into individual family groups, or centuries etc-- for easier uploading and proofreading during the joins.
Regards Isaac in California
Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.
On 12 Nov 2019 at 17:59 GMT PE Rosner wrote:
On 12 Nov 2019 at 09:38 GMT Liz (Noland) Shifflett wrote:
On 12 Nov 2019 at 05:15 GMT PE Rosner wrote:
On 4 Nov 2019 at 04:27 GMT Isaac Taylor wrote:
Evidence is either factual, or it's not evidence. There is no such thing as bad evidence.
I should hope it goes without saying we don't cite tertiary online sources as if they were facts. Ever. If we do that, we might as well just delete the website now; as we could go around in circles forever republishing all the random crap on the internet. Let's not confuse "stuff on the internet" as sources for genealogical truth. Hints, at best. Never sources. Similarly, we don't cite Ancestry or Geni trees (ever) but can look to them for hints and lists of actual source material eg. a census, will, or marriage.
Sources are contemporary documents (primary sources) or reputable secondary sources-- which by definition are synthesizing, and citing, specific and verifiable primary sources.
On 4 Nov 2019 at 01:54 GMT Robin Lee wrote:
Please remove "User submitted tree www.genealogieonline.nl" from the list of sources. I thought that everything on WikiTree indicates that while a user submitted tree is not sufficient evidence, it is not BAD evidence. Can you send me a link to that rule? Thanks....
On 1 Nov 2019 at 04:06 GMT David Selman wrote:
Thank you for self-certifying for the Pre-1700 badge! Participation in a Pre-1700 Project is strongly encouraged for those wishing to edit Pre-1700 profiles. Collaboration is essential because pre-1700 ancestors are shared by many descendants.
It looks like the England Project would be a good fit with the tag you entered. Adding the tag England will help you get updates about activity for that project.
Do you have any questions? Let me know. I'm happy to help! :-)
David ~ Pre-1700 Greeter
On 31 Oct 2019 at 20:06 GMT Ron Campbell wrote:
I'm not up on the pre-America era. Tell us what is reliably sourced and you'll get support. Thanks for your input. Keep connected. Ron Campbell
On 9 Oct 2019 at 06:03 GMT Isaac Taylor wrote:
Still, your sentence -- which you brought to my profile -- is objectively wrong. You said: "Nantucket was attached to the New York colony until 1692." Nope! You could say "after 1664" or "between 1665-1691" but you can't say "until 1692" because that implies going back forever (or to Hudson or whatever). Which isn't true.
The best argument you have is "between 1665-1691" starting with the conquest of New Netherland in 1664; ending with the transfer of Dukes to Mass, in Oct 1691 (not 1692). On the other hand, Massachusetts had an overlapping claim from an earlier charter. And I believe two kings agreed with that, including the one who got the final say. Whereas the one king who agreed with the point you're making was dethroned, and overruled on this and a zillion other topics.
It's a mess.
It's also moot.
Because it's a matter of fact Mayhew's actual ownership predates York/NY's contested jurisdiction; because there is no dispute Mayhew (Mass.) bought Nantucket from Stirling (Nova Scotia) and Gorges (Plymouth) way back in 1641, and none of those three had ANYTHING to do with the York family, or the New York colony-- which literally didn't exist yet. Note the government of NY itself agreed with that fact pattern, as you posted. Therefore when you write Nantucket was "attached to the New York colony until 1692" that's misleading and wrong, because 1641 > 1692, QED.
That said, I agree with your other point, and I apologize: this particular Swain is clearly the wrong host for the initial conversation (on his profile) which brought you here to my profile. That was my mistake. Sorry.
In the spirit of reconciliation, personally, I think it's crystal clear that when NY finally creates Dukes County (1683) they clearly have legal jurisdiction over all the towns/islands in it. For the next eight years. And personally, before 1683, when there's a town on an island without a county over it, and lawsuits about which colony or charter controls the mess, well, I believe jurisdiction in that interval is clear as mud. There wouldn't have been so many lawsuits and even royal audiences if that weren't the case. If they couldn't agree then, it's no surprise we don't now-- ha!
But again, given Swain died in 1682 and that falls squarely within your 'best-case argument window' of Nantucket being New York "between 1655-1691" then he is the wrong guy to host this convo. That was an oversight by me. Oops.
On 9 Oct 2019 at 04:07 GMT Bobbie (Madison) Hall wrote:
On 9 Oct 2019 at 02:06 GMT Bobbie (Madison) Hall wrote: