(Version 45.0 has 182,900 pedigree pages.)
Although organized as a single database, this website really comprises four genealogies only loosely related:
You can access the database with the index above, or it may be convenient to load the Master Index if you're going to do several lookups. Almost all this information was borrowed from other people (my Sources). All the credit goes to these other genealogists who have contributed their information freely to the Internet community. I give them my personal ``Thank You'' and apologize if I have misused their information or introduced errors. Although little of the genealogical data itself is new, the pedigree format has some unique features which may require Explanation.
If you want, you can download my pedigree as an Ahnenreihe. Dont't forget the http://fabpedigree.com/ prefix. (These almost useless files are missing from the CD.) Unfortunately, these files will be difficult or impossible to work with, but it seemed fun to create The World's Largest Ahnenreihe:
Because of the way Google search works, if I weren't careful, websurfers might end up entering this site at those pages, even though they'll usually be almost useless. If you really do want to access those pages, you can, but you'll have to enter the URL manually: http://fabpedigree.com/ followed by one of the nine files listed above.
My great grandmother, Lois Hudson is a pivotal person in my genealogical efforts. In 1963, her brother-in-law prepared a pedigree of Lois's mother -- that's what got me started. Since then, I've tracked down some further information on Lois's father and her husband.
I'm a computer programmer. Look at my Resumé or look at my website about Programming. I've practiced my HTML by making some other non-genealogy webpages. Here's some comments about ancient man and his languages, and a genealogy of the world's languages. I've also typed up some excerpts from wartime speeches of Winston Churchill.
Among many royal links (of doubtful accuracy), here's my Descent from King Robert III of Scotland.
Contents of this Page:
Other Pages at this Site:
Here's part of my family tree:
I make no attempt to show the full or correct title of noblemen. Otherwise I would have to render Tsar Nicholas II as
We, Nicholas II, by the grace of God, Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Tauric Khersones, Tsar of Grusia, Lord of Pskov, and Grand Duke of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia, and Finland, Prince of Estonia, Livonia, Courland and Semigalia, Samogitia, Bielostok, Korelia, Tver, Jugra, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgaria, and other territories; Lord and Grand Duke of Nizhni Novgorod, Chernigov; Ruler of Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Jaroslavl, Bielozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Kondia, Vitebsk, Mstislav, and all northern territories; Ruler of Iveria, Kartalinia, and the Kabardinian lands and Armenian territories - hereditary Ruler and Lord of the Cherkess and Mountain Princes and others; Lord of Turkestan, Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, Ditmarsch, Oldenburg, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth.(Perhaps this is a little simpler in the original Russian.)
Many of the ancient lineages can be reached in multiple ways. I wondered which ancestors were important ``Key Links'' without which much of William Windsor's pedigree would disappear. Here's what I found:
Because ancient names and surnames were not standardized, it is common for the same person to appear with very different names. Two ancient pedigrees, one French and one German, may lead back to the same person but because my database is large, and because the names may be very different, I often don't notice and the same person ends up in the database twice.
For example I just recently noticed that Eudes of LOGENAHE, shown as agnatic ancestor of Emperor Conrad II in some genealogies, and Udo II of LAHNGAU, ancestor of the Wetterau Dukes of Swabia, are actually the same person. Now he has a single pedigree page, but in the earlier version he had two. `Eudes' and `Udo' are forms of the same name and, I guess, the names `Logenahe' and `Lahngau' are also cognate.
Perhaps you, the Pedigree Surfer, can find other individuals with two separate pages here. I'd offer a cash reward, but I'm afraid there might be too many.
Why is there a pedigree for George Hanover? Even in the wildest theory, he can't be Jamie's ancestor.
Once upon a time there were only 20,000 names in my database. I almost stopped right there since 20,000 is a nice round number. But my database was missing Genghis Khan `Greatest of All Rulers.' I had Attila the Hun, Nebuchadnezzar the Terrible; it seemed a shame to leave out Genghis Khan who has many living descendants.
I have yet to see an early American immigrant who shows descent from Genghis Khan, but the British Monarchs do, starting with King George. Anyway, by showing George's ancestors I was able to complete the major lines in the Stuart dynasty.
I added much of England's remaining royal pedigree to my database as well, all the way to England's future King William V. William's mother, Lady Di, descends from thousands of scottish nobles who would otherwise not be in my database. (I still have many missing links in Lady Di's pedigree.)
Now I have over 90,000 distinct names. When am I going to stop??
I'm another victim of ``the genealogy bug;'' It seemed especially ``neat'' to trace descent back to very ancient people. My pedigree has grown to include the legendary monarchs of Ireland, Denmark, Cornwall etc. along with early Byzantine, Persian and Theban rulers. I began deliberately seeking the oldest genealogies, authentic or otherwise, stipulating only that they be alleged ancestors of myself (or other living people). (Since no one, so far as I know, claims descent from King Arthur or Lancelot, they do not appear, but Arthur's sister and Lancelot's brother each appears in a mythical genealogy and this is shown.)
This pedigree has very little to do with me: almost anyone who descends from European nobility can include Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, and Clovis the Great in their pedigrees. Because of intermarriages most English nobility can claim these ubiquitous ancestors, e.g. through Joan de Geneville and her husband. Other linkages, e.g. the High Stewards of Scotland, Emirs of Seville, Kings of Sheba, are somewhat harder to get to.
Joan de Geneville (1285 - 1356) has a very large pedigree; she is an agnatic descendant of Clovis the Great, and is also descended from King Alfred the Great, Emperor Charles the Great, and Pharoah Ramses the Great. (``Agnatic descendant of Clovis'' means Clovis is her father's father's father's father's father's father's ... father; no mothers allowed.) Among many other important ancestors, she is descended from the 9th century Princes of Magyars (Dukes of Hungary) via Emperor Frederick I.
(Let's pursue this last ancestry a bit to show the futility of it all. This ancient House of the Magyars begat the early Kings of both Poland and Hungary, and the daughters of these Kings who married important male progenitors include:
Just from Princess Sophia there are almost innumerable connections to the nobles of Germany, England, Castile and Italy; for example starting from Sophia's mother we have the following uterine lineage:
Joan de Geneville was the wife of Roger Mortimer, the infamous 1st Earl of March. They both appear in most English pedigrees: one of their daughters married the 11th Earl of Warwick, etc. Roger Mortimer adds some interesting ancestors, for example Sancho Garces `Optimo Imperator' King of Pamplona, supposedly the 5-great grandson of a marriage between a descendant of the Ummayad dynasty and a descendant of Chinaswind King of Visigoths.
Joan de Geneville also has descent from the earlier Kings of Scotland, traced all the way back to Dyfnwal Hen, 5th century King of Strathclyde. She also can trace descent from 9th-, 10th- and 11th-century Kings of Norway. In fact the pedigrees of Joan de Geneville, her infamous husband, and a few other ubiquitous English nobles (don't forget the Lords de Percy, who trace descent from a 9th-century Danish Earl) exhaust most of my database. It is interesting to see which of my ancient ancestors are not reachable in these ubiquitous English pedigrees. Two such are Agnus MacRory and Abul-Kasim, the Emir of Seville.
Agnus MacRory, d ca 1210, Lord of Bute and Arran, is descended from ancient Vikings who were distant cousins of William the Conqueror. Angus MacRory enters my pedigree primarily via his 3-great grandson, King Robert II the Steward, but also via the King's sister Egidia. I have many early New England immigrant ancestors who are descended from Joan de Geneville, John of Gaunt etc., but none of them is descended from King Robert II or Agnus MacRory. These Scots and their ancient Viking ancestors tie into me via Sir Robert de Pollock, a 16th-century Scots noble who received a land grant in ``New Scotland'' as Ireland was called: his great grandson emigrated to Pennsylvania in the 18th century. (There is another interesting path to Agnus MacRory via the Campbell Earls of Argyll to King Robert's 2nd cousin, Countess of Moray and wife of the 5th Earl of March. I show this linkage in the pedigrees, although I personally do not claim those Campbells as ancestors.)
We saw that Emperor Frederick I is ubiquitous in European pedigrees. The same is not true of his grandson, Emperor Frederick II. This is ``unfortunate'' because Frederick II's 2-great grandfather was the Emir of Seville, otherwise very hard to reach. If you show descent from Frederick II and the Emirs, you have descent from the ancient Kings of Sheba via the al-Hirah (Lakhmid) dynasty. Two ways to get to Frederick II are to show descent from King Pedro the Cruel of Castile (Pedro's wife has another path to Lakhmid blood) or from Pedro's 7th cousin Nicola Orsini, Count of Nola. My pedigree uses both paths, eventually via my 15th century 15-great grandmothers Catherine Wydeville and Elizabeth Whitney.
Perusing other on-line genealogies I found some ancient people missing from my ancestor list. Thomas Foljambe claims descent from ancient Viking Kings, distant cousins of William the Conqueror. I have incorporated the Foljambe line even though I can't claim them as ancestors: I'm trying to collect all these most ancient pedigrees, whether they're part of mine or not.
My intention is to provide an index to the most ancient (before 900 AD) and even mythical genealogies. Please tell me if you know an ancient line I don't have.
To tie myself in to these ancient pedigrees, I must go through my medieval ancestors in the British Isles, France, Spain, etc. but I do not claim great accuracy in these medieval links. In fact, I am so unqualified I tended to show every link I found, even when they were contradictory. This may give my site a peculiar utility: you can find wrong alleged links, if that's what you're looking for. Also, since I tended to show every alleged mother, etc., hidden in the bad data may be, by chance, correct answers not shown on some sites. :-)
From my pedigree pages, you can access pedigrees for these alternate identities (often the result of multiple or unknown wives) directly by clicking in the pedigree. As far as I know this is the only website with such a feature. There are about 700 such ambiguity indicators in the database.
Most European nobles are descended from Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, and Clovis the Great; I can't show all the 12th and 13th century nobles, but I have many of the important branches covered. I have several early New England immigrant ancestors who are descended from these royals, but none is a descendant of King Robert II `the Steward' of Scotland. Fortunately I have a 18th century immigrant ancestor, Dr. Thomas Pollock, who has me covered there.
Some ancient genealogies are even harder to get to. I have only two paths to the al-Hirah (Lakhmid) dynasty, which traces itself back to the Kings of Sheba in Davidic times. My connections use the colonist Sarah Spencer, wife of John Case, and the colonist Elizabeth Scott, wife of Deacon John Loomis. Both of these are supposedly descendants of Emperor Frederick II of Germany, a great-great grandson of Abul-Kasim Emir of Seville. Elizabeth Scott, if one accepts an (unsubstantiated?) link to Princess Constance de Langley, is also descended through King Pedro the Cruel and his wife from Emperor Frederick's great-aunt, Sancha de Castille, also a descendant of the al-Hirah dynasty.
It seems fun to combine these ancient ``ancestors'' into a single pedigree despite that many are mythical. My hope is to provide a genealogical index to all individuals born before about 850 AD. The individual need not be my ancestor, as long as he or she is someone's ancestor. For example, according to my sources:
Bjorn Ironside King at Uppsala, Ivar Boneless King of Dublin, Sigurd King in Denmark (was he father of Sigurd II Snake-in-Eye or what?), Ingvar Ragnarsson were all four full-blooded brothers born about 800 AD. Alof Ragnarsdottir (3-great grandmother of Ulfrida/Gunnhild Thorasdottir) was their full-sister. I am descended from all five of these siblings.
Paul McBride and Jerry Enfield are both descended from the Yorkshire Knight, Thomas Foljambe (1208? - 1283), whose 10-great grandfather was Eirik Ragnarsson, a half-sibling of my five afore-named ancestors. I have borrowed their data into my pedigree (Since I do not claim descent from Thomas Foljambe you will not see the usual `My 26-great grandfather' indications). By the way, the father of these six ancient nobles was Ragnar Lodbrock himself who plundered Paris with 120 ships in 845 AD, and supposedly sacrificed 111 Parisian soldiers to the Norse gods. The next time Ragnar sailed up the Seine River, King Charles II `Bald', also my ancestor, paid him 7000 pounds of silver to sail away. (This is an example of many interesting historical notes in Jerry Enfield's database.)
Here is a very small sampling of the other famous people who are my ancestors and therefore whose own pedigrees show up in my pedigree: John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, Rodrigo Diaz ``El Cid'' de Vivar, King John of England, Saint Olaf II, King of Norway, Emperor Frederick II, Great Charles (Charlemagne), Holy Roman Emperor, Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor, Basil I, Byzantine Emperor, Emperor Henry "the Fowler", Prince Rhodri "the Great", Swinthila, King of the Visigoths, Attila the Hun, Scourge of God, Mohammed, the Prophet of Allah, Emperor Constantine "the Great", Xerxes "the Great," King of Persia, King Priam of Troy, (vanquished by Agamemnon), and Ramses II "the Great," Pharoah of Egypt. Another nice starting point is King Alphonso VI "the Brave", since he begat three of my ancestors by three different wives, and each wife was of royal blood.
Because I have no expertise whatsoever in genealogy, I tended to copy data from my sources mostly verbatim, without even correcting probable spelling errors or making obvious inferences of geography or language. (I know that Alix de Bourgogne was probably never called ``Alice of Burgundy'' in her lifetime but I try to avoid making any deductions at all, to leave my source data intact.) For dates, I've put question marks where the sources indicated approximation or uncertainty, but some sources seem to use ``wild guesses'' for some dates without even indicating uncertainty! You will notice far too many men are exactly 30 years older than their children, and/or exactly 4 years older than their wives. I'm sure many of these were just guesses but I was reluctant to mark them as uncertain: some age gaps are equal to the statistical average by chance! (Long ago I gave up maintaining multiple date estimates.)
A common (amateurish) practice is to introduce phony surnames to link families. Common examples are of IRELAND, of BRITON, PLANTAGENET, of the MEROVINGIANS, CAPET. Since I copy naively, these will show up in my indexes. I decided to call this a ``feature'' instead of a ``bug'' and extended the idea somewhat. Thus everyone identified as an ``Emperor'' is listed under ``EMPEROR'' in the surname index. PHARAOH of Egypt, MONARCH of Ireland, MAWR (Welsh for `Great') and MIGHTY are also promoted to such ``quasi-surnames.''
When a person's title is similar to his name I combine them for brevity. For example, William DOUGLAS, the 1st Earl of Douglas, is rendered as ``William (1st Earl of) DOUGLAS.'' Sometimes I carry this idea too far and the name and/or title becomes garbled slightly.
Widow, numbered wife, concubine all have the normal meaning but the simple terms Husband and Wife are used on this site as arbitrary partner terms and do not imply sacramental or legal sanction for a union. ``NN, Miss'' are equivalent and imply ignorance of name; ``Miss'' is used only when a surname can be inferred.
In older times, the new year began in March or April. I have replaced (when I was alert enough) such year numbers to use the modern convention (New Year on January 1).
I make no attempt to distinguish where fact changes to fiction. Saint Joseph of Arimathea was probably a real person and may even have visited Britain, and stories of the famous Celtic warriors King Llud and his father are based on fact, but the legend that Llud's son married St. Joseph's daughter seems very unlikely.
Although not qualified to discuss the systems and grades of nobility, I will risk a brief summary.
The English system of noble ranks is simple and well-known, with the upward progression: Baron/Baroness, Viscount/Viscountess, Earl/Countess, Marquess/Marchioness, Duke/Duchess, Prince/Princess, King/Queen, Emperor/Empress. For brevity we will refer only to the male titles. Knights and Baronets (hereditary knights) rank below Barons and are sometimes called ``lessor nobles.''
In England only a member of the royal family can have the rank of Prince or (usually) Duke, and of course only the King can be Emperor (of India). (Empress Matilda was co-ruler of England in the 12th century but acquired her title as widow of a German Emperor.)
This system evolved over time (with Viscount and Marquess especially recent additions). As you can tell from the pedigrees, in more ancient times, Anglo-saxon nobles were `Earldormen,' (possibly cognate with `Earl' though that title derives from Danish `Jarl') and Scottish nobles were `Thanes.' (Ireland's Kings (under Monarch), some of Wales' Princes and England's Underkings, or Subkings were palatine grades. -- see next section.)
A basic distinction is between sovereign and vassal. Thus the present Prince of tiny Liechtenstein is vassal to no one and would be ``superior'' to a royal or imperial Prince, though he would still defer to a royal or imperial sovereign. Ranked in between a sovereign and a vassal is a palatine who has a suzerain but is sovereign within his own realm.
A King is a sovereign, although Catholic Kings claim the Pope as their suzerain. A Prince may be sovereign or a palatine (the title `Archduke' is used by some sovereign princes): the Prince of Monaco, for example, cedes some authority to the French government, and is thus, in effect, a palatine. A Duke (hereditary viceroy) is normally not sovereign unless titled `Grand Duke,' but to add confusion `Grand Duke' or `Archduke' is also used as a style by the sons of Emperors.
Noble designations may be used for family members of a nobleman as well as for the title-holder himself.
In England, any child (or agnatic grandchild) of a King is a Prince or Princess, and his wife is a Queen, but the husband of a sovereign Queen is just a Prince. The heir apparent of an Earl (or any child of a Marquess or Duke) will be a `Lord' or `Lady' but otherwise only the spouse of a noble takes a noble title. The heir of a Baron is just a `Master.'
In Germany, on the other hand, children of a Duke will use Prince or Princess as their title, and any child of a Graf is called Graf or Grafin.
Since Wales was conquered, south Britain has had neither sovereign Princes, nor vassal Princes, but rather royal Princes whose title depends on a close relationship to the King. (Sovereign Princes are not ``royal'' but occupy a princely grade in between royal and noble.) Similarly Archduke is used both as a sovereign princely grade, and as a title for imperial family members.
To add still more confusion, there are various kinds of courtesy titles (akin to unearned `Colonel' as used in the South of U.S.A.). Britain also retains some ``Lords of the Manor'' who are not recognized as ``peers'' by the government (and do not use the title ``Baron'').
The French system is similar to the English. Their words for King, Duke, Earl are `Roi,' `Duc,' `Comte.' We show these with the English equivalent except for `Comte' which we show as `Count.' Their word for Marquess is `Marquis.' Other Western European countries use a similar system.
The German system is more complicated and leads to many errors here. For example, `Fürst' is a high noble rank (very roughly on a par with English Marquis), with `Prinz' used as a lesser rank, e.g. for the son of a Fürst, but both words are usually translated as `Prince.' (When my source shows a title of `Furst' I leave it intact but I do not have the time or talent to restore this higher rank to other German `Princes.' Since I allow only the 26 English letters in the database, `Fürst' will be rendered as `Furst' or `Fuerst.')
The noble titles Margraf, Landgraf, Burggraf are usually regarded as grades, but actually translate as ``border sheriff,'' ``rural sheriff,'' ``town sheriff.'' Similarly, Altgraf and Wildgraf are ``mountain sheriff'' and ``forest sheriff.''
Both `Landgraf' and `Graf' are often translated as `Count,' but a Landgraf was usually more powerful than an English Earl, while `Grafs' were much more plentiful. (`Graf' is a cognate of `Sheriff.') In the English system, titles follow a strict hierarchy (Marquis always outranking Earl, and so on) but each German title had its own history, so, for example, a Landgraf might outrank a Herzog.
German titles, in approximate order of decreasing rank, are usually translated as follows:
`Burggraf' (`Castle Count') is translated as Baronet by those who translate Graf as Lord, but may be translated as Viscount by those who translate Graf as Count. Either translation is very misleading and fails to recognize that the German and English systems are fundamentally incompatible. The powerful Hohenzollern family, after all, first held `just' the title Burggraf of Nurnberg.
Unlike in England or France where all nobles were vassals of the King, high German nobles (including most Margraves and at least one Landgrave) had a sovereign or palatine (semi-sovereign) status. `Pfalzgraf' (Count Palatine) was a special title used to denote a palatine (high viceroy). Since there were only one or two specific Count-palatinates, the terms `Pfalz' and `Palatine' also became used as placenames and surnames.
Unlike England where, for example, an Earldom yields only three living titles (the peer is `Earl', his wife `Countess', and his oldest son `Lord'), German titles proliferate. Sons of Dukes are called Princes (with the distinction from `Furst' unfortunately often lost in translation). Every descendant of a Count may include `Count' in his full name. The precise style (form of the title) will usually distinguish the actual titleholder from his sons; unfortunately the distinction has been lost in my efforts.
I acquired some terminology just by building this pedigree. As you examine the pages, you'll know as much as I. `Tsar' is a Slavic word for Emperor, and `Voivode' is a Slavonic word meaning first `General' and later `Duke/Prince.' `Khan' is a Turkic word for Lord; Genghis was styled `Great Khan.'
Lacking expertise I show the titles as I found them. The Merovingian chiefs were called ``Dukes'' while vassals of Rome and ``Kings'' when they became independent. Eventually their power was delegated to the hereditary ``Mayors of the Palace'' (``Major Domus'' or Prime Minister). These (the Pepinids) eventually overthrew the Merovingian dynasty and became the Frankish Kings ``of the second race.''
I do not attempt to list every title a person held, usually listing only that of highest rank, even if it was attained late in life. For a ``Sir'' who was also a ``Knight,'' only one of these distinctions is mentioned, or neither if he also had a noble title. ``K.G.'' denotes Knight of the Garter, England's highest degree of knighthood; I try to show this distinction even for nobles.
I mostly show titles and surnames in whatever language my source did; thus one man might be ``Graf von Pommern'' while his father is ``Lord of Pomerania,'' and son is ``Seigneur de Pomeranie.'' These all mean the same thing. It doesn't mean the language of Pomerania changed from generation to generation -- I just thought it interesting to note the different ways a name is shown in different sources. Perhaps I should have made the names more consistent but, lacking expertise, I'd be likely to introduce error.
I tend to show a title if any source did; hence many are inflated. I have been inconsistent in listing titles acquired by marriage, such as Queen or Countess for the wife of a King or Earl.
Related to titles are numbers; for example King James (1566-1625) was known as both James I and James VI. That case (of two different numbers) is well-known and easily explained, but there are many instances of people who have shown up in sources with three or more different numbers, and I have no idea which numbers are correct or meaningful. As usual, I just try to show each number which appears in any source.
My father's father's tree The trees I inherited from my great-great aunts went back to people born in the 17th century. Using free Internet sources I have added more names, and even hooked into noble blood. My 6-great grandfather John Allen (a field officer in George Washington's Continental Army) married Anne Polick and from Internet sources I find that others made her ``Polk'' and show descent, via a Dr. Thomas Pollock, from an 11th century Fulbert the Saxon, territorial king of Pollock. The path is unclear: e.g., I assume there was only one ``Sir Robert II de Pollok'' born circa 1609. Sir Robert II was descended from Lady Helen Campbell, in turn descended from a 14th century King of Scotland.
Anne Polick's mother is also supposedly descended from a Scottish noble: the First Earl of Dundonald, himself also a descendant of Lady Helen Campbell.
My granddad's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother was Esther Brown (the aunt of John Brown of Ossawatomie and Harper's Ferry). Our family records traced her back to Mary Eggleston and from there the Internet linked her to the Bigod family of Yorkshire, and thence to 15th century English nobles, 14th century Dukes, 13th century Kings, 12th century Emperors and so on. This link was the first link I found to ``noble blood'' but later I learned that the Eggleston-Bigod connection is unsubstantiated and based solely on an onomastic inference. But by then the bug had taken hold, and anyway, by then I'd found other noble links.
Uh oh; I must be trying to show off jargon. ``Onomastic'' means ``pertaining to a name.'' Since a commoner named Bygod Eggleston was born, of uncertain Mother, in the village whose Lords were Bigods, an inference has been made that he is descended from the Bigod family, although no such evidence has turned up. (The inference seems plausible to me. Bygod is an extremely rare given name, and it would seem peculiar or even unseemly to use this name except to reflect kinship.)
My father's mother's tree Dr. William Anderson ``performed the first appendectomy'' in the State of Georgia; John Johnston of 19th century Eire was a politician ``assassinated by the Sein Fein.'' Yet despite their apparent significance, I am unable to locate these people in Internet genealogies. Dead-ends?
My mother's father's tree is given fairly extensively in the LDS database, since he was a Mormon. I was able to extend it a little further back using other Internet sources but I don't know how to get any earlier than some 17th century immigrants to America (John Elston b.ca 1608 d.ca 1700 New Jersey; daughter Ann of Jonathon Marler, b. 1638 m. Thomas Wakefield b. 1618; Johanes Hammer b. Palatine ca. 1683).
My mother's mother's tree includes Jean Rio Griffiths Baker. We have an undocumented tradition that Jean Rio was descended from a woman who fled France for religious reasons. Widowed in London, Jean Rio set sail with her children to join Brigham Young at the Great Salt Lake, bringing the first piano into the territory of Utah. Her son and grandson married Mormon pilgrims, respectively of English and Swedish roots. (Jean Rio finally settled in a small town in California which, by coincidence, became my ``home town'' almost a century later.)
I tend to show every name or spelling deviation, both for given names and surnames. (Many of the given name variations are doubtless identity ambiguities.) In most cases, every surname given in a source in all capital letters is entered into my index. Thus one individual may appear in my index several times. This may make it easier for you to locate medieval noblemen in my database. I don't include women's married names as a rule, except in some instances where they took a high title like Queen or Duchess.
Eventually I realized it was futile to list every spelling deviation, etc. Still many naming variations are shown. The most extreme case is Charles of Laon (b ca 953, d 992), Duke of Lorraine who appears in the index under six different surnames: of LAON, CAROLINGIANS, of FRANCE, of LORRAINE, of UPPER LORRAINE, and von NIEDERLOTHRINGEN.
The index entries for most misspelled or secondary surnames are given for only one or a few of the people in that lineage. Click on such a name, and, sometimes, the person you're seeking may show up as an ancestor or descendant.
Many of the common prefixes (de, le, von, of the etc.) are shown in lower case and do NOT participate in the surname indexing; an exception is particles like L' which appear within the surname: the surname DAMPIERRE-SUR-L'AUBE is spelled out in full. Prefixes like `ap,' `ingen' which denote son of or daughter of, are considered part of the surname, whether capitalized or not.
Many of the surnames were never used as such during the person's lifetime. For example many princesses of early English or French royalty are shown as `Plantagenet' or `Capet.' These were assigned much later for a genealogist's or historian's convenience. I merely show (some of) the surnames that show up for that person in genealogical web searches.
At first I intended to show variations of interchangeable prefixes. The surname of ``Berthold IV von ZAHRINGEN'' is sometimes rendered ``de ZAHRINGEN'' so I render it ``von/de ZAHRINGEN.'' The surname of ``Thurstan le GOZ'' is sometimes rendered ``de GOZ'' or just ``GOZ'' so I write ``(de/le) GOZ.'' Another example is ``Runydd verch/fil EINUDD.'' I finally drew the line at ``of'', not mentioning it when ``de,'' ``di,'' ``du'' or ``von'' was the alternative, and overlooking ``de'' when ``du'' or ``d' '' was the alternative.
Here's a few more of the many examples of multiple surnames:
I discovered some of the name variations myself, including the equivalence between Gruffydd ap GWENWYNWYN and Griffith de la POLE. (This is surely no secret to historians, but wasn't evident in the genealogies I examined.)
Only one entry is created in the Forename Index for any person, but other names (or spelling variations) may be shown in parentheses. There may be various reasons a person appears with more than one forename; I tried to list every name I saw.
However, to reduce clutter:
Sorry for the many, many errors. Please send me some e-mail and I'll try to incorporate your corrections and suggestions. Just listing the different types of error in this family tree would take a lot of space, but I'll make a few comments.
I took sources at face value and generally tried to maximize the size of the tree. Sometimes the dates don't make sense but I've left the impossible reconstruction intact because I don't know whether it is the date or the link that is wrong and both might be ``almost'' right. I've included pedigrees which were probably fabricated in the Middle Ages, in part because there's no proof that they're wrong; in part because such ancient fabrications seem interesting on their own account. Similarly, I often don't comment when historical lineages drift into mythical ancestors: one may not be sure precisely where fact turns to fiction.
In addition to errors I introduced accidentally, or copied unknowingly from other sources, there are some spelling deviations I introduce deliberately.
Another very common error is mistaking lists of succession for a patrilineal line: -- thrones often pass to brothers, nephews, uncles or even non-relatives. For example, pedigrees shown here for the Kings of WESSEX have a number of such confusions.
Sorry for the lack of references: Many of my sources didn't have references either. It would have taken me several more years to build a pedigree of this size if I tried to do it right, and I certainly do not claim to be a professional genealogist.
``Last we looked the website had only 22 Marked Ancestors. They included seven Kings who usually take `Great' as their middle name, and others (Muhammed, David of Israel) who are clearly Greater than `Great.' I don't blame you for marking a 23rd ancestor, but how did you happen to choose Ygerna verch Amlawdd, of whom I've never heard?''
The marked ancestors cover many of the major ancient lineages. V - Venedobel - goes back to the Magyars, the Huns and even the Choo emperors of China. G - Egbert III - and W - William I - cover English royalty before and after the Norman conquest, K - Clovis the Great - and C - Charlemagne - cover the two famous Frankish lineages, A - Alphonso the Great - covers Visigoth and Spanish Kings, and so on.
But I didn't have good coverage of the Celtic lineages. H - Heremon, Monarch of Ireland -, B - Beli Mawr -, and U - Camber of Cornwall -, are all ancient Celtic progenitors, but they are too ancient to provide optimal information. It is better to ``Mark'' an ancestor associated with post-Roman Brythonic royalty.
I didn't figure this out myself. I used a mathematical tool to discover what 23rd marked ancestor would be most informative. (Technically I wanted to maximize the entropy of the partitioning into 223 mark combinations.) After running this tool it was clear that the best new ``marking'' would be of a Celtic from the early `Dark Ages.'
The obvious candidate would be King Gradlon `the Great', whose ancient statue still stands in Quimper, or Gradlon's father, whose children include eight Saints. A problem was that I was running out of letter-symbols! Gradlon Mawr (aka Urban) was King of Brittany and Cornwall, so `G,' `M,' `U,' `B,' and `C' would all be appropriate symbols, but all were already taken! In legend, Gradlon Mawr is the 2-great grandfather of King Arthur of Camelot. Arthur Pendragon is even more famous than Gradlon and the symbol `P' was not yet used as an ancestor mark.
King Arthur himself is now an ancestor in my database, but my marking his mother Ygerna I get broader coverage.
His father isn't marked ``96-great grandfather'' anymore! (Fix one thing, something else breaks.) The other path to Manushchyhr has a ``several missing generations''; in Version 2 that demotes Manushchyhr from ``96-great grandfather'' to just ``Ancestor'' (see next Question) but then he gets promoted because of Manushrud!
I leave the old explanation intact. That logic still applies in some cases, just not in the Manushrud/Manushchyhr example.
First note that the relationships shown in the pedigree pages here are the same as shown in the giant Ahnenreihe. Also note that Manushrud is shown with a ``brother'' who is a 95-great grandfather, so calling Manushchyhr a 96-great grandfather is correct, the question is why didn't the software take the closer relationship. (A probable relationship is shown in preference to a mere possibility even if more distant, but that doesn't apply here since all paths to Manushchyhr are just possibilities.)
The software which generates this website has so many idiosyncracies and special cases it's embarrassing. In some cases, it isn't so much that the software is defective, as that it is trying to compensate for defective data. That's what happens here:
Some of the ancient mythical lineages don't make sense -- there just aren't enough generations to put an ancient person into the right time frame. I leave the mythical lineage intact, but I wanted the Ahnenreihe (Ancestor Table) to be pretty: I wanted Adam and Eve to be the most distant ancestors shown in the Ahnenreihe, and I wanted the other very ancient ancestors to appear at roughly the right time frames. For this reason, the software which calculates these relationships ignores some of the mythical lineages which don't make chronological sense.
John Kennedy is shown as 15-great grandfather of Winston Churchill, and my 17-great uncle, but just as an ``Ancestor'' for Prince William.
Check the pedigree of James Kennedy. Although I show him as a descendant of John Kennedy (and 16-great grandfather of Prince William), I indicate uncertainty about the generational distance between him and John. Until I patch up this part of my database, I won't know exactly how many ``greats'' are needed to express the precise relationship of John Kennedy to Prince William.
Churchill also descends from John Kennedy via another path. There I again don't know the name of the Kennedy but believe there was exactly one unnamed generation, so I can compute a relationship to Churchill.