Frank Lloyd Wright and Taliesin

Recently when perusing social media, I ran across an article with the title “The Real Life Horror Story Of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Taliesin House” (see here). It was the juxtaposition of the words “Wright” and “Taliesin” that caught my eye – because “Wright” was the maiden name of my wife’s mother and “Taliesin” is the middle name of one of our grandsons. I decided I had to do some further investigation.

 

Frank Lloyd Wright – a convoluted personal life

Frank was born in 1867 in Wisconsin. (You can find much of his life story here). His father, William Cary Wright, was originally from Massachusetts and his mother, Anna Lloyd Jones, was an immigrant from Wales. Although never graduating, Frank attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison where he studied civil engineering. In 1887 he moved to Chicago which was still rebuilding after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 and found work as a draftsman and architect. In 1889 he married his first wife, Catherine Lee “Kitty” Tobin. They went on to have six children.

By 1901 he had completed about 50 projects, including many houses in Oak Park. It was about this time that he began working on a house style known as “Prairie Style”.  In 1903, while designing a house for Edwin Cheney (a neighbor in Oak Park), he became enamored with Cheney’s wife, Martha “Mamah” Borthwick Cheney, and she became his mistress. They moved to Europe to escape the scandal in Chicago. While Edwin granted Mamah a divorce, Kitty would not grant one to Frank.

When Frank return to the US in 1910, he persuaded his mother to buy land for him in Spring Green, WI, and this land was adjacent to property held by his mother’s family. It was there that he built a new home in 1911 which he occupied together with his mistress, their servants, and on occasion Mamah’s children who usually were in the custody of her former husband.

On August 15, 1914, while he was working in Chicago, a servant set fire to the house and then murdered seven people with an axe as the fire burned. Three of these people were Mamah, then age 45, and her two children, then ages 11 and 9. Having lost his ex-wife and children, Edwin later remarried and had three more children.

Frank also did not wait too long to have someone else in his life and he began living with a new mistress, Maude “Miriam” Noel. In 1922, Kitty Wright finally granted Frank a divorce, the terms of which included his not being able to remarry for a year. He married Miriam in 1923, but her addiction to morphine led to the failure of this marriage in less than a year. In 1924, still married to Miriam, Frank met Olga Lazovich Hinzenburg. He and Olga moved in together in 1925 and they had a child together later that year.

Frank and Miriam finally divorced in 1927. He again had to wait a year and he married Olga in 1928.

In my investigation into these people, I have found the following genealogical connections:

·        Through his Wright ancestors as well as my wife’s Wright ancestors, Frank in an eighth cousin, three times removed, of my wife. He is also a ninth cousin, four times removed, of myself.

·        Catherine Tobin, Frank’s first wife, is a seventh cousin, twice removed, of my wife and an eighth cousin, three times removed of myself.

·        Edwin Cheney is my tenth cousin, once removed

·        Martha [Borthwick] Cheney is a seventh cousin, three time removed, of myself (2 ways)

·        Maude [Hicks] Noel is my sixth cousin, four times removed

·        Olga Ivanovna Lazovich Hinzenburg was born in Montenegro and is not related to my wife or myself.

 

Taliesin homes

Frank Lloyd Wright actually built four homes for himself with the name Taliesin – three in Wisconsin (called Taliesin, Taliesin II, and Taliesin III), and one in Arizona.

Taliesin was begun in 1911 and was completed in 1912. The living quarters were burned in the fire of 1914 when Frank’s mistress and her children were murdered.

Within a few months of his recovery from this devastating event, Frank began work on rebuilding, naming the rebuilt structure Taliesin II. In 1925, there was another fire, apparently caused by an electrical surge which ran through the telephone system, and this second home was also destroyed.

Rebuilding yet again, the new structure was called Taliesin III. This final version measured 37,000 sq. ft.

Taliesin West was Frank’s winter home and school in Scottsdale, AZ, from 1937 until his death in 1959 at age 91. Today it is the headquarters of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation.  

 

Taliesin

Taliesin (pronounced tal-YES-in) was a 6^th century early Brittonic poet of Sub-Roman Britain whose work has possibly survived in a Middle Welsh manuscript, the Book of Taliesin. He was a renowned bard who is believed to have sung at the courts of at least three kings.

According to legend Taliesin was adopted as a child by Eiffin, the son of Gwyddno Garanhir. In later stories he became a mythic hero, companion of Bran the Blessed and King Arthur.

In addition to the poems attributed to him, he shows up in a variety of places in literature, including, Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s Idylls of the King. He is also the subject of a few musical works. And, of course, he is the individual who Frank Lloyd Wright named his homes after.

Our daughter gave her third son the middle name of Taliesin, as part of a series of middle names for her four children – each having a name after one of the countries in the British Isles – Marrok (English), Conall (Irish), Taliesin (Welsh), and Bhaltair (Scottish). You can read further details here.

The Canadian Pierreponts

The Pierrepont family of central Canada are descendants of Samuel Whitworth Pierrepont who came to Manitoba in 1911 from England. The below is a quick synopsis of his story.

Samuel Whitworth Pierrepont

Samuel was born in 1887 to Joseph and Elizabeth Pierrepont in Kneesall, Nottinghamshire. He was the oldest of what were eventually three siblings with his brother William born in 1888 and his sister born in 1889. His mother died in 1901 when Samuel was only 14. Even at that young age, Samuel had already left school and was working as a farmer with his father as his employer. In the 1911 census we find him living in Scawby, Lincolnshire as a joiner in an iron foundry, however, that was soon to change.

In 1911, Samuel married, to Gertrude Burman. As was the custom of the times, the marriage banns were announced from the pulpit three times on consecutive Sundays (May 28, June 4, and June 11) and they were married later that third week on June 14. Only 3 weeks later, on July 7, 1911, Samuel left his young bride in England and boarded a boat in Liverpool that was leaving for Canada. When the boat landed in Quebec, Samuel noted that he was a wheelwright in England but he intended on taking up farming once again when he arrived at his intended destination in Winnipeg. To pay for his voyage, it appears that he had indentured himself to work as a farm laborer for 5 years. (Others on the same voyage were pledged to serve anywhere from 2 years to life). Samuel was also noteworthy in that he declared himself to be a Wesleyan, unlike most of the passengers who were members of the Church of England.

In 1912, Gertrude, sponsored by her husband, also journeyed to Canada to join him. In the 1916 census we can find them living in Swan River, Manitoba. The first of their four children, Earnest, had been born in 1915. Samuel and Gertrude are living on the same farm as Samuel’s first cousin, George Pierrepont, and his wife, who had come to Canada in 1902 and who were most likely the sponsors of Samuel. Although George and his wife, Edith, had arrived earlier, Samuel and his wife are considered the beginning of this branch of the Canadian Pierreponts as George and Edith did not have any children.

 

Ancestral line of Samuel Pierrepont

In looking at this ancestral list, you will see that there are a variety of spellings of the last name. These spelling are taken from the original sources where they are subject to the vagaries of the person recording what they heard.

Prior to the 1800s, we do not have UK census records, but only a variety of church parish records. The spelling in these parish records has considerable variation. Since Joseph Downing Pierrepont (Samuel’s great-grandfather) had a life that spanned this period, the later UK records contained the expected spelling as Pierrepont, but earlier parish records showed this considerable variation.

Prior to Joseph, the only records available are parish records. As can be seen, these had different spellings for each of the generations.

 

Samuel Whitworth Pierrepont (Pierrepoint/Pierrapont) (1887-1951)

  Joseph Downing Pierrepont (1855-1938)

    George Pierrepont (1808-1904)

      Joseph Downing Pierrepont (Pierpoint/Perrepoint/Pierepont/Pierrepoint/Peirrepoint/Pearpoint) (1779-1864)

        William Pierpoint (1735-1796)

          William Parpoint (1706-1743)

            Adam Perepoint (1676-1708)

              William Perpoint (1627-1707)

                William Perpoynt (1601-1679)

                  John Perpoint (Parpointe/Pearpoint/Pairpoint) (1560-1601)

At this point in the genealogical record, any source material that can tie John to his ancestors cannot be found. However, there is every reason to believe that he is descended from the same individuals who were the ancestors of the New England Pierpont just a few generations later as the below section documents.

 

Connection to New England Pierponts

The Canadian Pierreponts are from the same area of England as the New England Pierponts, i.e., Nottinghamshire. The earliest in the Canadian line, John, was born in Southwell, about 12 miles from Holme Pierrepont. Later generations in that line were in Southwell, then Ossington, then Kneesall – all small villages in the same part of Nottinghamshire a few miles from each other.

The same vagaries in the spelling of the name also appear in the English ancestors of the New England Pierpont line. Although our official genealogy (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//gen/pier/piergen.htm) uses the abbreviation “P-re” for Pierrepont, you will see in the comments where there are references to source documents with these other spellings. For example, in the commentary for Henry P-re (3>111211222112) you will see the spelling “Pierpoint”, “Perepont” and “Pierpont”. In the commentary for his son, Henry (3>1112112221121) you will find “Perepoint” as well as “Perpoynt”. Even after the family arrived in Roxbury, MA, the same sorts of misspellings can be found, i.e., “Pairpoynt”, “Peare Poynt” “Pierrapoint”, “Perpoynt” and others.

The genealogy of the family in our official genealogy is also quite muddled and full of unanswered questions for that period of time in England (i.e., 1400-1600). For examples, see the commentary on “IR 74-100”. But in particular, note the very questionable list of children of the two uncles of John and Robert who are the immigrant ancestors of the New England Pierponts. Their uncle William (17>251) has a list of 5 possible children and their uncle Richard (17>252) has a list of 7 possible children. And the names in both these families include a William, which is the predominant name in the Canadian ancestral list above.

Unlike the connection to the Virginia branch of the Pierpoints who came from another part of England and for whom we have not been able to find a connection, there is no reason to doubt that there is a connection between the Canadian branch of the Pierrepont family and the New England Pierpont family – both because of being in the same county (shire) in England, having the same type of name spellings, and having the same use of first names. While the records are not very clear (in either of these two family branches), it does seem clear that there is likely a connection, even if it cannot be documented with certainty.

Critical Race Theory and other related topics

There have been a number of news articles recently about CRT and related topics. It seems that every day there is some new “controversial” aspect. I’d like to explore a few of these and give some comments on them.

 

The News Articles

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-school-board-approves-controversial-transgender-policy

Policy 8040 requires teachers to use preferred pronouns and allows “gender-expansive and transgender students” to participate in sports and other activities “in a manner consistent with the student’s gender identity.” It also allows transgender students access to school facilities that correspond to their “consistently asserted gender identity.”

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/amex-crt-training-urged-staff-to-adopt-a-hierarchy-putting-marginalized-above-privileged

[U]rged Amex employees to construct their own intersectional identities, mapping their “race, sexual orientation, body type, religion, disability status, age, gender identity [and] citizenship. White, males, heterosexual people, Christians, able-bodied people, and citizens would presumably count as “privileged.” “If members of a subordinate group are present, workers should practice ‘intersectional allyship’ and defer to them before speaking.” [T]he credit card company should reduce standards for black customers and sacrifice profits in the interest of race-based reparation.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/greg-gutfeld-oregon-reading-writing-math-racist

Oregon just decided that reading, writing and arithmetic are racist. It has decided to drop the requirement that students demonstrate that they’ve mastered those skills. They dropped the requirement in order to benefit “Oregon’s Black, Latino, Latina, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color,” effectively turning their degrees into a participation trophy.

 

Personal Pronouns

Historically, in English, there are several sets of pronouns (see https://7esl.com/english-pronouns/). There is no controversy about the first-person singular set (I/me/my/mine/myself – the subject/object/possessive adjective/possessive/reflexive). Nor is the any controversy about the second person (you/you/your/yours/yourself), nor any of the plural sets (we/us/our/ours/ourselves; you/you/your/yours/yourselves; they/them/their/theirs/themselves). However, there is a controversy about the third person singular sets as there are three: The male set is he/him/his/his/himself; the female set is she/her/her/hers/herself; and the non-person/thing set is it/it/its/…/itself. These are controversial because you need to have a gender assignment to know which set to use and the non-person/thing set is not to be used for people. [Note that I have not encountered any such controversy in other languages, even though such gendered assignment of pronouns also occurs in them – such as “el/ella” for him/her in Spanish]

With the recent increase and public practice of individuals having a gender-identity that may or may not match their biological sex, there are now those who feel that people need to give you the set of pronouns that they prefer that you use. This may be as simple as a trans-gender female (i.e., one who is biologically male but who identifies as a female) asking that you use the female set of pronouns. Or it may be that a person who is bi-sexual asking that you use some alternative form of pronouns such as ze/zir/zirs (or ze/hir/hirs) or that you use the plural set of pronouns (they/them/their) which are gender-neutral. (See https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/Files/HSC/HEO/Pronouns.pdf for additional explanation.) But even those who are cis-gendered will often give their preferred pronouns as a way of showing that they are supportive of those who use alternative sets.

Let me give a few examples:

My niece, who lives in NYC, use this type of convention to identify herself as “She/her” (https://alissarumsey.com/about/)

One of the medical coordinators I am working with on the various Alzheimer’s studies that I am a part of, in her signature block has the following: “Fran Reckers (she/her/hers)”. Since Fran is a name that can be used by either sex, this is actually helpful, although each email from her also includes a thumbnail picture that conveys the same information.

Finally, I want to quote another “about” page for an individual who I knew when he was a classmate of my children (http://www.lovemultipliescoaching.com/about/). There are a bunch of somewhat controversial things here, not all of which I will comment on:

“Erik W. House (he/they) M.A., is a love and relationship coach, along with being a spiritual guide and healer, he works closely with people in the polyamorous, consensual non-monogamy (CNM), and kink/BDSM relationships. He helps both individuals, as well as, polycules in digging down to find what their unmet needs are so that his clients can create the lives and relationships they want.

As a neurodivergent child, he was often made fun of, called names like retard, freak, just to say some of the nicer ones. […]

Those who practice kink, BDSM, polyamory, and CNM should have access to spiritual practitioners, coaches, as well as licensed professionals who are willing and able to accept us as we are.”

In many ways, this “controversy” about personal pronouns is just an extension of the issues that existed in the 1950s when I was growing up. In elementary school, the teacher (who was always called “Mr.” or “Mrs.” or “Miss” as a matter of respect) needed to know what to call their students. [For context, I attended a small school that had one class per grade for grades 1-7.] This was usually the person’s legal first name, but it could also be a nickname or a middle name – in all cases the same name that the student’s parents would call them and with which they identified. But there were problems when there were two students in the classroom with the same name. For example, we had two boys with the legal name of “Robert”. If one normally went by “Robert” and the other by “Bobby” that would solve the problem. But since both of them went by “Bobby”, the teacher needed to differentiate and so one was “Bobby Fehrs” and the other was “Bobby Schlager”, i.e., using their last names.

But our class was a bit unique. We had a set of identical twins – Marie and Louise Clement. That was not a problem. But in the same small classroom we also had a cousin of theirs who also had the name Louise Clement. So how was the teacher to distinguish? She couldn’t use last names as with the two boys. She asked if she could call one of them Louise and one Louisa – but “Louisa” said that was not her name and rejected the idea. Fortunately, the two girls had different middle names (one was Marie (the same as her twin’s first name!) and the other was Beatrice. So, the teacher began calling them “Louise M” and “Louise B”.

Thus, on one hand the notion of using personal pronouns that are consistent with how a person identifies is no more controversial that using the name with which a person identifies. But on the other hand, there are no consistent pronoun sets to use when we get beyond the choice of the male/female sets. Even in the references above there is a ze/zir/zirs set and a ze/hir/hirs set (and I have encountered others as well). And what does it mean in the third example when Eric identifies as “he/they”? Is he interchangeably singular-male and plural?

 

Intersectionality

This term only came into being in 1989. It was the work of a legal scholar and was used to denote that sometimes how others perceive us is as a combination of two or more of the facets that define us (for a well written article see https://www.edi.nih.gov/blog/communities/intersectionality-part-one-intersectionality-defined). The “facets that define us” are not totally enumerated and are often selected from a broad list of items based on the situation. I have seen the following facets mentioned, and I’m sure that there are many others:

Race, indigeneity, class/socioeconomic status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, (dis)ability, spirituality/religion, immigration/refugee status, language, education, employee status, body type

To give an example using just the facets of gender and body type, if you see someone who is both female and “skinny” you may react differently than if you saw a female who had average body type or a male who was “skinny”. Perhaps you would associate the term anorexia with that individual where you would not use that term for the male with the same body type.

I don’t see any issues with this term and there is definite value in recognizing that in order to understand an individual you have to know more than one of their facets. In fact, there is real danger in trying to categorize someone on the basis of only a single factor, such as “All ____ are ___”.

But there are two consequences to this that have gathered momentum in recent years. First, some have tried to attach labels of “oppressor” and “oppressed” (or other similar terms) to the two ends of each facet (Man are oppressors – women are oppressed; college-educated people are oppressors (i.e., smart) – those who only have a high-school education are oppressed (i.e., dumb)). [As an aside, body type is not a facet with the labels on the ends. Both ends of the spectrum, obese and skinny, are “bad” and individuals there would be “oppressed” and the middle is the area of being “oppressor”. The same is true of such facets as religion.] And second, many are trying to make the facet of race the one that trumps all other facets.

In the second news article quoted above, we see a good example of these problems. While asking their employees to “construct their own intersectional identities” is a reasonable exercise, the company then assigns labels such as “privileged” and “subordinate” to these facets. They then ask their employees to “practice ‘intersectional allyship’” and defer to those who are subordinate. Then in the last sentence quoted, they compound the problem by putting all the focus on the race identity when they talk about “reduc[ing] standards for black customers” and “race-based reparation.”

I’ll address these again below.

 

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Efforts to ensure diversity have been around for quite a while. And I agree that some of the efforts to combat blatant racism in the past have been necessary. But recently the DEI terms have begun showing up in combination and the focus has been on not “equality”, i.e., making sure that we give equal opportunity, but “equity”, i.e., requiring equal outcomes. And this focus is almost entire race-based.

I was recently invited to listen in on a conversation with the president of Michigan State on the topic “A Foundation for Learning and Deep Inquiry” This conversation featured Teresa K. Woodruff, Ph.D. Let me quote from her bio which was attached to the email invitation.

“Teresa K. Woodruff, Ph.D., provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, is a dedicated scientist, committed educator and innovative researcher. During this conversation with President Stanley, Provost Woodruff will discuss the development of diverse approaches to innovative and effective teaching and share news about new initiatives that are increasing access and success for all learners. She will also talk about her efforts to foster diverse, equitable and inclusive work and learning environments for students, faculty and academic staff.”

Note the DEI words (which are always presented in that order) in the last sentence. I have a few problems with this which I’d like to elaborate on.

First, while these “code words” sound nice, they conceal an entirely race-based, one-sided, approach. In the case of MSU, they are looking to have “equal outcomes” in all situations. This means that since blacks comprise 13.4% of the US population (see https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219), that we need to have them represent that percentage in all the university statistics – scholarships, population in each college of the university, graduates, etc.

But let’s look at it another way. Since white individuals comprise over 75% of the population (see the same census figures above), shouldn’t “equity” require that whites comprise 75% in each situation as well? Let’s look at something that is quite public about MSU – it’s sports teams – which are a huge money-making machine for MSU and most other major universities in this country. If we really believe in “equity”, shouldn’t we ask the university to ensure that 75% of the members of their football and basketball teams be white (and they are far, far, from that!) Oh, you respond, but that’s because we select our football/basketball teams based on the players abilities. And if MSU limited the number of black athletes in order to ensure “equity”, they would be at a disadvantage compare to other schools. Someone explain to me why “equity” is only an appropriate topic when blacks are under-represented and not appropriate when whites are under-represented. And why the focus on blacks when those who identify as Hispanic/Latino represent 18.5% of the population. If equity is about equal outcomes, shouldn’t we have those same percentages on the MSU sports teams?

But even more insidious are the ways in which we are trying to achieve “equity” – by eliminating any measurable standards. If MSU (and most other educational institutions) believes that participation in their sports teams should be based on ability, then why don’t they base things like their acceptance criteria to the university on ability (since education should be their primary focus)?

Most university admissions standards have already been bent way out of proportion in order to ensure that the student body is diverse enough, often by lowering standards for particular groups. (It would be interesting to see the average GPA or SAT scores of the starters on the average university football/basketball team compared to the average GPA/SAT scores for the university as a whole – but I digress.) I recall that last year there was a lawsuit against Yale University which alleged that “most Asian-American and white applicants have one-eighth to one-fourth the likelihood of admission as African-American applicants with comparable academic credentials.”

And now we’ve gone even further, as noted in the third news article above. Now an entire state (Oregon) has decided that “reading, writing and arithmetic are racist.” Really? Knowing that 2+2=4 is racist!? So now you’ll be able to receive your high school diploma in Oregon even if you can’t read or write or do simple arithmetic? As the article notes, now a high school diploma will be reduced to the academic equivalent of a participation trophy. And then they give a long list of types of individuals who they say this change will benefit. But they might just as well say “only whites know how to read and write”!

All this madness concealed under the banner of DEI and “equity”!

 

Critical Race Theory

Having dissected the aspects of personal pronouns, intersectionality, and diversity, equity, and inclusion, now let’s look at the topic I started with – Critical Race Theory (CRT).

CRT has been around as an academic concept for over 40 years. The core idea is that race is a social construct and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies (https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05). The basic tenets were created by several legal scholars (including Kimberlé Crenshaw who introduced the term intersectionality above.)

But this same article also states that “CRT puts an emphasis on outcomes, not merely on individuals’ own beliefs, and it calls on these outcomes to be examined and rectified.” Thus, we see why the above sections on intersectionality and DEI are so relevant to any discussion about CRT and why the problems/issues mentioned above are also problems/issues with CRT.

It was only a month ago that Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, said that CRT “has mostly been taught at the college level and is not taught at the nation’s elementary, middle and high schools.” (https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-racial-injustice-race-and-ethnicity-government-and-politics-ce1ca40ecbe5abf10afcc10864d1b3e9). But it’s pretty obvious that this statement is false.

One school district, D49 in Colorado, summarized it nicely when they banned the teaching of CRT (https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-school-district-bans-critical-race-theory) when they stated:

District leaders and staff shall not promote the following principles associated with Critical Race Theory in D49’s classroom curricula:

·        Race Essentialism: The assertion that race is the most important identity

·        Collectivism: The assertion that group identity is more important than individual identity

·        Accusatory characterization of individuals as oppressor or oppressed according to their race

On the other hand, a school district in Kansas recently spent $400,000 on CRT training for teachers, which told teachers to “reject and resist any parents who disagree with” CRT (https://sentinelksmo.org/teacher-leaves-shawnee-mission-over-critical-race-theory-masks/).

It’s pretty obvious to me that we are in a cultural war! On one side are the teacher’s unions, the establishment elite, and the politically progressive (mostly, but not all, democratic). On the other side are parents who care about their children and the future of this country and increasingly many school teachers who are quitting their public-school employers and moving to private schools or other venues where they are free from the union and/or school board dictates. Which side are you on?

The New England Pierponts

Introduction

The Pierpont Family Association has been meeting for nearly 100 years – our first meeting was held in 1924. Our official genealogies say that we have a “Focus on the New England Pier(re)ponts of America”. So, why is it that our meetings are, with only a few exceptions, held in Connecticut instead of the Boston area where the New England Pierponts first came to America? And why does it seem that we all have the Rev. James Pierpont of New Haven in our ancestral tree when he was only one of several children of brothers John and Robert Pierpont who came to America? The purpose of this paper is to answer those questions.

For our answers, let’s do a detailed analysis of the records from our genealogy (link above).

First, a few remarks on how this analysis works. We need to do this analysis one generation at a time using the following methodology:

·       We start each generation with all the families with the name Pierpont/Pierrepont. For each of those family we see how many children they had. These numbers tend to be much larger back in the 1600s-1700s than they are now.

·       We then subtract all those who died young (these numbers similarly were much greater back in colonial American than they are now). These are marked in the genealogies as “dy”.

·       We then subtract all those who never married (marked as “unm” for un-married) and those who married but who had no children (marked as “dwi” for died without issue)

·       Finally, we need to discount those (not very many as we have pretty good records) for whom we do not know what happened to them.

·       The remainder are those children who had families

·       However, we then need to eliminate all those who are females as they would not be able to pass along the Pierpont/Pierrepont family name. While in more recent times this is no longer always true, in colonial America and in families of English origin, women were expected to take on the surname of their husband.

·       The final result of the above will be the number of families carrying forward the Pierpont name into the next generation.

·       We will repeat the above analysis one generation at a time for several generations (a bit time-consuming, but that’s the only way to do it correctly.

Okay, with a reasonable methodology established, let’s work one generation at a time to see what happens to the Pierpont family in New England.

 

Family Lines – less Rev. James Pierpont

[Chart of results – less Rev. James]

 

(Note – for those who are interested, I have included the relevant lines from the Pierpont Genealogies at the end of this blog – with every line coded in the same colors/fonts as the above chart.)

Generation 1 – At the beginning of the analysis, we have two families – those of John and Robert – who settled in Roxbury, MA, about 1640. Between them they have 24(!) children – huge families. Of those 24, I’m going to remove the Rev. James who went to New Haven – we’ll look separately at him a bit later.

Of the remaining 23 children, 13 die young (I told you it was a significant problem!) Those who do not marry or who marry but have no children amount to another 4. There are only 6 with families, but 3 (the expected half) are females. Thus, there are three remaining families to carry on the family name to the next generation. Not a huge number, but more than the two we started with.

Generation 2 – The three families have 17 children among them, the average family size dropping since the initial huge problem of children dying young has gone away. But half of these (9) do not marry or have no children. Two move to Canada – we’ll keep them in the analysis for now, but as we’ll see below they shortly disappear. Of the remaining 8 children, only 2 are females, so we have six families going into the next generation – doubling the prior generation.

Generation 3 – The six families have 23 children among them, the average family size continuing to drop. We still have a few dying young, and about the same percentage not marrying or not having children. But we have now lost track of several of the next generation of those who went to Canada. Of the remaining nine families, five are represented by female Pierponts and will no longer carry the Pierpont family name. So, we are down to just four families.

Generation 4 – Numbers are similar to generation 3, but of the 10 children who have families, 9 of them only have females. This phenomenon is called “daughtering out” and as a result there is only a single family with the Pierpont family name carrying forward into the next generation!

Generation 5 – The sole remaining family only has one child, but that child too is a daughter. The Pierpont family name has disappeared in New England (with the exception of the family of James who we’ll find again below).

Analysis – At this point it appears to be a sad story. Two members of a prominent English family come to New England as part of the Great Migration and, despite the issues of wide-spread death of young children in this harsh environment, are continuing to thrive. Then, within just two generations, the family name “daughters out” and the name Pierpont is in danger of disappearing – at least in New England!

By the year 1800, there are no Pierpont males with families who are carrying on the family name! While the PFA is not restricted to those who still carry the family name (witness that the co-historians of the PFA have the last name of Kraft and Russell). But by the time the PFA is established 125 years later, there is little interest among those who have not had that name in the family tree for several generations.

 

Family Lines – Rev. James Pierpont

[Chart of results – only Rev. James Pierpont]

 

Generation 1 – We’ll start with the same two men, John and Robert, but this time we’ll exclude everyone except the Rev. James who went to New Haven as the new pastor of the Congregational Church there.

Generation 2 – as we all know, James married three times as his first two wives died quite young. He had a total of nine children. A few of these died young, did not marry, or had no children. Of the six who had families, three were females, leaving only three to carry on the family name. Not a huge number, but still an increase.

Generation 3 – Numbers still modest, but unlike the family members up in the Boston area, there are only a few who do not have families, and, perhaps most importantly, of the 16 who have families, only 4 of them have only females. So, rather than beginning the “daughtering out” process where the numbers of male-led families is starting a downward trend in Boston, James has a dozen male grand-children to carry on the family name.

Generation 4 – Again, unlike his Boston area relatives, the family size in James’ descendants is not trending down. James has 88 great-grandchildren (although he has passed away by this time). The number dying young or not having children may seem high, but some of that is simply because there are so many great-grandchildren. Even after all the exclusions, there are 63 families and 29 of them are headed by Pierpont/Pierrepont men.

Generation 5 – Upward trend is continuing. Unlike the rest of the Pierpont family elsewhere in New England, by the end of this generation there are a full 50 families with the Pierpont/Pierrepont family name.

 

Conclusion

Over the years there have been a number of presentations on the Rev. James Pierpont – his prominence in the New Haven community, his important role in the founding of the Collegiate School of Connecticut (later named Yale), his connections to other ministers in other towns in Connecticut, etc. But what may have been lost in all the facts is how without him there would simply be no New England Pierponts, no Pierpont Family Association. His blood lines – shown here over just five generations – flow through all of us in the PFA!

 

 

 

 

 

Fate of New England Pierponts

 

            Italics – females, did not carry on the family name

            Red – died young, unmarried, or no children

            Blue – left country or unsure what happened to them

 

20>1 John Pierrepont (1617-1682) Came to Roxbury about 1640

20>11 Thankful (1649-1649) dy

20>12 John (1651-1651) dy

20>13 John (1652-1690) dwi

20>14 Experience (1654-1698) m John Hayward, 6 children all dwi or dy or unm

20>15 Anne (1657-1657) dy

20>16 James (1659-1714) New Haven

20>17 Ebenezer (1660-1696) m Mary Ruggles

            20>171 John (1693-?) m Elizabeth Bailey

                        20>1711 Hannah (1723-?) ??

            20>172 Ebenezer (1694-1755) m Ann Hilton, m Hannah Wiswall, m Sarah Cushing

                        20>1721 Mary P (1723-1724) dy

                        20>1722 Ebenezer (1725-1767) m Hannah Gridley

                                    20>1722h John (?=?) exists?

                                    20>17221 Hannah (1750-1787) m Moses Davis – extensive family

                                    20>17222 Ann

                                    20>17223 Mary m Nathaniel Sparhawk

                                    20>17224 Ebenezer (1761-?) m Rebecca Wait

                                                20>172241 Emily (1785-1865) m Samuel Langley – family

                        20>1723 John (1727-1790) dwi

                        20>1724 Ann (1728-?)  unm?

                        20>1725 Benjamin (1730-1797) m Elizabeth Church

                                    20>17251 Benjamin (1760-?) m Elizabeth Pope, dwi?

                                    20>17252 William (1763-?) unm

                                    20>17253 Elizabeth (?-?) m Joseph Popo, dwi?

                                    20>17254 Sarah (1765-?) m William Taylor, 2 children

                                    20>17255 Mary (1676-?) unm

                        20>1726 Mary (1732-?) unm

                        20>1727 William (1735-1769) m Mary Davis

                                    20>17271 James Harvey (1762-?) unm

                        20>1728 Sarah (1736-1759) unm

                        20>1729 Samuel (?-?) dwi

                        20>1720 Hannah (1750-1787) m Moses Davis, dwi

                        20>172a Nathaniel (1751-?) m Elizabeth Smith, ????

                                    20>172a1 Lucy (1776-?)

                                    20>172a2 Betsy (1779-?)

                                    20>172a3 Sally (1780-?)

                                    20>172a4 John (1783-?) ?

                                    20>172a5 Nathaniel (1785-1785) dy

                                    20>172a6 Charlotte (1787-?)

                                    20>172a7 Hannah (1789-?)

                        20>172b Joseph (1754-) m Clarissa Granger, dwi?

            20>173 Mary (1696-1724) unm

20>18 Jonathan (1663-1663) dy

20>19 Thankful (1663-1664) dy

20>10 Joseph (1666-1686) dwi

20>1a Benjamin (1668-1697) dwi

 

20>2 Robert (1621-1694) m Maria, m Sarah Lynde

20>21 James (1757-1757) dy

20>22 Margaret (1659-1659) dy

20>23 Margaret (1661-1661) dy

20>24 Jonathan (1663-1663) dy

20>25 Jonathan (1665-1709) m Elizabeth Angier

            20>251 Elizabeth (1693-1717) m Tobijah Perkins, dwi?

            20>252 Jonathan (1695-1758) m Margaret Drummer, dwi

            20>253 Sarah (1697-1773) m Enoch Sawyer, large family

            20>254 Thomas (1700-1753) dwi

            20>255 Anna (1793-1731) m Edmund Gale, m ?Ring, dwi

            20>256 Joseph (1706-1794) unm

            20>257 Mary (1707-?) m Jonathan Bancroft, no chidren?

            20>258 Edward (?-?) dwi

20>26 Thomas (1667-1790) dwi in Canada

20>27 Ezra (1669-1669) dy

20>28 Sarah (1671-1671) dy

20>29 Margaret (1673-1713) m Benjamin Swayne, large family

20>20 James (1675-1676) dy

20>2a James (1677-1721) m Sarah Gardner

            20>2a1 Thomas (1711-?) m Mary Hensted

                        20>2a1h Mary (?-1808) m Daniel Holt, ??

            20>2a2 Robert (1712-1786) m Hanna Ruggles, m Susannah Morey

                        20>2a21 Hannah (1740-1742) dy

                        20>2a22 Sarah (1742-1752) dy

                        20>2a23 Elizabeth (17??-?) m Peter Cunningham, family

                        20>2a24 Robert (1764-1788) dwi

            20>2a3 Sarah (1714-1795) m Joshua Davis, family

            20>2a4 Joseph (1716-1772) m Miss Hamilton, moved to Canada

                        20>2a4? Joseph (1737-?)

                        20>2a4? Hannah (1739-?)

            20>2a5 Abigail (1719-?) m Ebenezer Newall, dwi?

            20>2a6 James (1721-?) m Sarah Dorr, moved to Canada

                        20>2a61 Joseph (?-1792) to Maine?

                        20>2a62 James (?-?) ?

                        20>2a63 Sarah (1750-1828) m Gustavus Fellows, ?

20>2b Robert (1678-1679) dy

20>2c Sarah (1680-?) m Gershom Davis, 3 children

 

Medical Studies – Giving Back – An Update

Back in December 2019 I posted about the various medical studies that I was participating in (see here for details). But things have changed since then and I thought it was about time for me to post an update.

C-diff Study

I began participating in this study in the beginning of 2018 following my hospitalization for sepsis. This study involved getting three injections of either a vaccine or a placebo (saline solution) and then being followed for three years to see if contracted C-diff. I checked in monthly on an electronic diary. The study was supposed to last until September 2020. However, as that date was approaching those running the study extended it for another year until September 2021 (I think because it took so long to recruit the 17,000 people in the study that they needed the later participants to finish their three-year participation). But as my three years had been reached, they asked me to return my electronic diary. I’m not sure if I will find out if I was given the vaccine or the placebo after the study ends next month, but at this point I don’t suppose it really matters.

Alzheimer’s Study #1 – Aging Brain Cohort

As I noted in the above posting, I’ve been participating in the ABC study since the fall of 2019. This test involves a physical and mental evaluation, a brain MRI, a PET scan and/or a lumbar puncture. The evaluation is repeated every year. They also ask you to consider donating your brain when you pass away.

In November of 2019, I had the lumbar puncture. After posting about it, I was interviewed by the Penn Memory Center and they featured me in their monthly newsletter! You can read the article and see pictures of me and my family here.

When COVID hit in 2020, the schedule for participation was significantly impacted. The annual evaluation was conducted remotely and some portions that could not be done that way were eliminated. However, as COVID restrictions relaxed this spring, I was able to travel down to Philadelphia for my brain MRI. Lying still inside the machine for over an hour was an interesting experience. But before I left the lab, I was able to see some of the images. I can now confirm that my brain cavity is NOT empty and there really is something in there!

I have also now signed the paperwork for donating my brain (now that I know that it’s actually in there!). I had agreed to take the PET scan this fall, but that is now on hold due to my pending participation in the AHEAD study (see more on this below).

Alzheimer’s Study #2 – APT Webstudy

In March 2020, I was informed about the availability of a new study called the Alzheimer Prevention Trials (APT) Webstudy. This is purely on online study that is aimed at developing a large online group of individuals who may be at higher risk for developing Alzheimer’s dementia, and who will allow their memory and thinking test results to be tracked over time. This study is not very time consuming and consists of signing on to an application every three months for about an hour or so. They give you a series of “tests” designed to stretch your memory and thinking skills and see if they change over time. The tests are all playing card based and require you to answer yes/no as quickly as you can. Tests include responding yes when they flip over a red card and no when they flip over a black card; responding yes when the card flipped over is the same as the last one and no when it is not the same; responding yes when you have seen that card before in the test and no when you have not seen it. This latter one is especially challenging as the number of cards you have to remember gets higher and higher as the test progresses!

My scores have remained nearly similar over the past year+ which is a good indication that my thinking/memory skills are not yet impacted.

Alzheimer’s Study #3 – Memory and decision-making

Last month I was contacted about another study – a one-time commitment of only 2 hours. I initially declined as it would have required travel to Philadelphia. But then they offered to have me participate via a remote link so I agreed. In this test you learn about decisions made by other people and then make decisions of your own. It’s looking for how other people’s opinions influence our own decision making (the concern being that when people find out if they or a family member has dementia how does that influence them). My participation is scheduled for later this month, so I can’t comment much more at this time, but I’m looking forward to it.

Alzheimer’s Study #4 – AHEAD

Because of my involvement in the APT Webstudy (#2 above), back in January I was contacted by one of the clinical research coordinators at UPenn asking if I would be interested in participation in a study called TRC-PAD (Trial Ready Cohort for the Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia). This study if for individuals over 50 who may be at increased risk and is to develop a pool of individuals who can get prescreened and are thus ready when drug studies are initiated. Since these are not just tests, but would involve receiving actual injections of trial drugs (much like the C-Diff study above), it was not something that I took lightly and so my wife and I had to have a more serious discussion about it.

As the research coordinator and I had several back-and-forth emails over the following months, we (my wife and I) agreed to my participation. But meanwhile, a study was being kicked off for which they would be looking for participants and I could just skip the TRC-PAD and move directly into this new study. It was known as AHEAD (see https://www.aheadstudy.org/ for more details). None of the initial participants in TRC-PAD had been interested in this study, so this was definitely new ground for me.

The drug being studied is designed to remove/eliminate the amyloid plaques in the brain before people have symptoms of Alzheimer’s. This is a phase three study, meaning the safety of the drug has already been evaluated. There is an initial PET scan to determine what level of amyloid plaque I already have. Depending on the level It requires either (1) bi-weekly IV injections every two weeks for the first two years and then every four weeks for another two years or (2) monthly IV injections for the full four years. The commitment of having to drive to Philly that often was a bit more than I was willing to take on, but they are working on having a home infusion service (having a nurse visit) and with that change I was willing to participate.

We are still working at setting things up for this. I will still have several trips to Philly at the beginning – for a PET scan as well as blood work and the first few IV sessions, but that’s reasonable. As I mentioned above in #1, this AHEAD study will supersede the ABC study and so we have put the PET scan needed for that on hold pending getting everything set up for this new, much more intense, study.

Summary

As I mentioned in my earlier posting, I am committed to participation in these Alzheimer’s studies because of the dementia in my own family (my father and his mother). I have also seen the impact of it on people like Dr. Cook (our former family doctor and a member of our church) and others in my family as well as our church family. This AHEAD study is going to be taking things to another level with getting at least monthly IV injections for four years. But I still feel the same way that the opportunity to help others in the future is something that more people should consider.

When I mentioned this to our current family doctor last year, she was also impacted by my commitment – so much so that she also signed up to participate in a study related to an autoimmune condition which she suffers from. Usually, it’s the doctor giving advice to patients, so when she later told me how I had influenced her to do the same I was surprised. One never knows what influence one has.

Have you ever considered participating in a medical study? If not, why not!