Death in the Family

At the beginning of August we received a phone call that Donna’s sister Cora (generally known as “Pixie”) had passed away. While we have had other deaths in the family, this was the first one of one of the siblings.

[Gravestone]

But that got me thinking – how many of our combined family members have passed away and what percentage does that represent.

 

Defining the population

The goal here was to assemble a list of all the family members in “our” generation. So, I started with myself, my wife, and all of our combined siblings (I’m one of five and my wife is one of seven). That part was easy. Then I added all our first cousins, i.e. the children of our parent’s siblings (ignoring whether such individuals were biological relatives or adopted). Then, I added in all the spouses/significant others of each of the siblings/cousins.

But, as in many families, there were a few “exceptions”. First, I included my Hill cousins (who are technically cousins of cousins) as we always treated them as first cousins during all our growing-up lives and since. Secondly, I did not include any cousins on my wife’s mother’s side. When my wife’s grandfather passed away, his mother obtained custody of all his children, so there was never any contact between my wife’s mother and her older siblings. Even as the family genealogist, I do not have any good records of what happened to all of them. Finally, there are a few other miscellaneous exceptions – such as my wife’s sister was married briefly when she was 18 to a local soldier but they divorced shortly thereafter and he moved away, so no one in the family has been in contact with him for 50 years.

At the end of the above process, I had accumulated a total of 74 names of individuals. These 74 are all age 70 (+/- 12) with the oldest still living being 82 and the youngest being nearly 60.

 

Population Analysis

Exactly half of these 74 individuals are male and half are female. But beyond this, the percentages tell very different stories.

Of the 74 individuals, 28 (38%) of them have passed away. But the ratio of M/F is quite different. 18 (49%) of the 37 men have passed away, but only 10 (27%) of the females have passed away. So even in this small sample, the women are outliving the men.

Our immediate families seem to be living longer that the others. While the cousins and their spouses represent 65% (48/74) in this population they account for 75% of the deaths (21/28). Similarly, the spouses represent 55% (41/74) of the population, but they account for 64% of the deaths (18/28).

 

My Outlook

So, what does this say about me? Already, nearly half of the men in my generation of this extended family have passed away. But of the 19 men still living, only 3 are older than I am and the oldest is only 2 years older (Donna’s brother Chuck is 78 and is currently in an assisted living home).

I also maintain the records for our church senior citizens. While there are 68 individuals older than myself among our church attendees, only 26 men are older than I am. And of the five funerals of men this year, four of them were for men younger than me.

In doing some research, there are different figures given for the average lifespan of people in the US based on their gender. The CDC gives figures of 73.2/79.1 (M/F). But other websites give figures of 74.8/80.2 and 75.3/80.5 (these latter ones are for white males/females where the corresponding figures for black males/females are 69.0/76.1).

I’m reminded of a comedian I saw a video of recently. He stated, “I’m 74 and the average lifespan of men is age 76. But for women the average lifespan in 81, so now seems to be the ideal time to do a gender transition in order to add 5 years to my life.”

While one can’t apply averages to individuals, they do give some idea on where one stands. Already in 2024 I’ve had two hospital stays as well as 18 doctor/dentist visits (with 6 more scheduled in the next 3 months). But while I may be having physical issues, mentally I’m doing quite well. I had my annual Alzheimer’s aging test earlier this week and the person running the tests said that she’s not used to having anyone who goes through the test battery as fast as I do. And while I spend a lot of my day in a recliner with my foot raised due to my amputation and neuropathy, I have a constant stream of grandsons coming through the room as I oversee their home schooling.

So, I may be aging, but when people ask how I’m doing, my response is always, “I’m doing great!” And that, to me, is the most important aspect!

 

Actors in the Family

I’ve known since my childhood about the Alcox/Alcott family who had been prominent in the early days of the town where our family lived. I’ve written about them in a prior blog post (https://ramblinrussells.blogspot.com/2019/03/genealogy-story-alcockalcockealcoxallco.html). And as part of this I knew about my 3^rd cousin, Louisa May Alcott (1832-1888), who is perhaps best known for the book she wrote, “Little Women”. She wrote this in 1868 and it was an immediate success.

However, I had not known that her book had been turned into a play. Here is that story…

 

The Concord Players

A few days ago someone posted in one of the Facebook groups which I follow (New England Family Genealogy and History). In this post she noted that she found among her family’s things a program for a play put on by The Concord Players which was celebrating the 100^th anniversary of the birth of Louisa May Alcott (1835-1888). (Here is a link to that posting - https://www.facebook.com/groups/HistoryGenNEFamilies/permalink/26372361562407315/).

[Picture of program]

 

The thing that caught my eye immediately is that two of the actors were Bronson Alcott Pratt and Louisa Alcott Kussin. That could not be a coincidence! Some quick checking revealed that Bronson and Louisa were siblings and that they were grandchildren of Louisa May Alcott’s sister Anna – thus making them my 5^th cousins, twice removed (5C2X – I’ll be using this notation in all the results below).

I decided that I needed to see if any others in the cast were also cousins of mine. It took a bit of research, especially for the women as I didn’t know whether they were going by their maiden names or their married names. However, I was able to take advantage of the fact that all of these individuals were living in or around Concord, MA in the 1930s – where the Concord Players were based. Here are my results:

·       Bronson Alcott Pratt (1889-1943), 5C2X

·       Grace W. [Brooks] Butler (1891-), 9C1X

·       Louisa Alcott [Pratt] Kussin (1900-1982), 5C2X

·       Caroline W[aterman] [Swift] Farnsworth (1905-1957) 8C2X

·       [Mary] Cornelia Lunt (1889-1965), 9C2X

·       Marian [Molly] Harlow (1913-1993), 8C2X

·       Janet [January] [Elliott] Wulsin (1893-1963), 6C4X

·       D[aniel] Ripley Gage (1885-1962), 8C2X

·       Raymond P[eacock] Baldwin (1894-1971), 9C1X

·       Hans W[illiam] Miller (1890-1960), since he was playing a German part, it’s only reasonable that his family were recent immigrants from that country. The only non-cousin in this list.

·       Russell T[rain] Smith (1905-1992), 8C3X

·       Mary [Dillingham] [Brooks] Buttrick (1887-1965), 9C4X

I also decided that I’d investigate the director and costumer who were listed on that program:

·       Marvin C. Taylor (1890-1973), 9C3X

·       Mrs. Allen French (1883-1964), Aletta Ayyrrigg Lillibridge, 2^nd wife of Allen French, 6C4X. Note that Allen French was the author of “Sir Marrok” which he wrote in 1905 and which I republished (and later added to) upon the birth of my grandson, Ethan Marrok Christman.

Thus, of the 14 people involved, 13 of them are my cousins! What a great finding! I never knew that there were so many actors in my family.

 

The Play

There was one other thing I needed to check out – the person who wrote the play version of Louisa May Alcott’s book. I found that story here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Women_(play). As you can see, Jessie Bonstelle, had been appealing to the Alcott family for the right to adapt the book into play format. She began this shortly after the turn of the century and after eight years was finally able to get permission from the family (Louisa had been dead about twenty years at that point. But Jessie did not feel capable of writing the play herself, so she enlisted the services of Marian de Forest.

So, are these two woman cousins of mine as well? Here is what I found:

·       Jessie Bonstelle (1871-1932), 7C3X

·       Marian de Forest (1864-1935), 5C4X

This play debuted in Buffalo, NY, in 1912, then toured the US before making its Broadway debut later that year where it went through 184 performances. There was no obvious New England connection in all this, but what were the chances that any of the actors were my cousins as well?

 

The Broadway Production

With a play that was first performed in Buffalo, NY, and later on Broadway, it turned out to be even harder to find the genealogical records of the actors. But, after many hours of research, here are the director, the original 12 actors, and the one replacement who filled a role on Broadway:

·       William A. Brady (1863-1950), family from Ireland

·       [Emma] Marie Pavey (1881-), English/German ancestry

·       Alice [Rose] Brady (1892-1939), daughter of director, Irish and French ancestry

·       Gladys Hulette [1896-1991), 9C2X

·       Edith [Margaret] Speare/Spears (1894-1970), 7C5X

·       [Nellie] Gertrude Berkeley (1864-1946), 6C4X

·       Eugene A. Eberle (1840-1917), 5C5X

·       Howard [Bolles] Estabrook (1884-1978), 7C3X

·       [Elwood] John Cromwell [Dager] (1886-1979), 8C3X

·       Carl Sauerman (1868-1924), born in Sweden, studied in Germany, which is appropriate for playing the part of a German

·       Carson Davenport (1860-1937), England and Ireland ancestry (it wasn’t until I found a picture of him in an old newspaper that I realized that he was much older than many the others and could adjust my searches.

·       Lynn [Burleson] Hammond (1879-1963), 8C2X

·       Lillian Dix (1864-1922), 9C3X

·       Beverly West (1898-1982), German/Irish ancestry

Thus, 8 of the 13 actors are my cousins – more than I anticipated.

 

This has required MANY hours of genealogical research over the past few days. I need a break!

Who is Like Me?

I began this blog 9.5 years ago. One of the things I posted in the first few months was titled “The ‘Like Me’ Syndrome”.

            https://ramblinrussells.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-like-me-syndrome.html

In this post I talked about how we tend to feel comfortable when we are with groups of people who are like us. I used as examples Racial/Ethnic Clumping and Female/Male dominated professions. I then noted some of the solutions to these issues and which don’t work and which might work. I also looked at some of my experiences of being with people who are NOT like me. I finished with the following paragraph.

Think about your own experiences.  When you are with others who are “like you” do you feel more comfortable than when you are with others who are “not like you?”  What is it about the group that makes you “like” each other?  What other aspects of the group could you focus on so that the “like me” could dominate the “not like me?”

 

Is This Still An Issue?

If anything, this is even more of an issue than it has been historically. We now live in an era of what is sometimes referred to as “identity politics.” This is politics based on particular identities such as ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, denomination, gender, sexual orientation, social background, caste, and social caste. Although it’s been around since the late 20^th century, we are now drawing very distinct lines around the various groups.

More recently, we have begun to put a lot of effort into DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), but in doing so, we are requiring that people identify the racial/ethnic/sexual aspects that they have and thus we are enforcing the differences between people rather than looking for commonality. Then our political system tries to take advantage of these differences with such statements as “I am a woman, you are a woman, therefore you must vote for me.” (Or substitute other aspects into “I am ____” like I am an African-American, I come from a family of immigrants.)

The implicit meaning behind this is that it’s not who we are or what we do, but that we are defined by whatever aspect/identity is being discussed. Thus, things like the color of our skin are the most important things about us (“Black” lives matter!) so if we have just one drop of blood from a Black ancestor many generations ago, then we are supposed to act, to BE, Black. Universities are now having special graduation exercises just for those in a particular identity group.

In this hyper-identity world, we are now using these aspects of our life to divide us! And by dividing us into smaller groups it discourages people from working together. The “Like Me” syndrome that I noted several years ago is being used as a weapon. Instead of America being a “melting pot” where people of many different backgrounds can come together, we have been turned into a collection of identities and encouraged to NOT work together. It’s a sad state of affairs.

So, what can we as individuals do about it? Let me repeat what I wrote nine years ago:

What other aspects of the group could you focus on so that the “like me” could dominate the “not like me?”

 

So What About Me?

I thought it would be interesting to use myself as a case study and whether I actually practice what I preach. I’ve been using social media, i.e. Facebook, since shortly after I retired 17 years ago. I have now accumulated a list of “friends” numbering roughly 400. But being the organized person that I am, I also maintain a spreadsheet of all these friends which notes how I am connected to them. So, I’d like to use this spreadsheet as a surrogate for which aspect of “like me” each individual is primarily associated with.

Here are my categories:

·       Family: those with some sort of genealogical connection. This accounts for nearly 150 individuals. There are four subcategories in this. (1) Immediate family – siblings, first cousins, nieces/nephews, etc. (note that because those two generations below, i.e. grandchildren, do not use Facebook this is not a complete list of family); (2) Pierpont – those related on my mother’s side – because I am the historian of the Pierpont Family Association, I also have connections to the wider family tree including relatives in France, England, and Canada; (3) Russell – extended family on my father’s side – the subject of much of my genealogical research; (4) VanDeCar – extended family on my wife’s side.

·       Church: those individuals in the church we have attended for nearly 50 years as well as others in the denomination that we have established connections to. This accounts for about 130 individuals.

·       Wolcott: individuals from my hometown in Connecticut. About 65 individuals, roughly 2/3 are my high school classmates, the others are individuals who have an interest in Wolcott History which I often blog about.

·       Work: individuals who I have worked with in some capacity, either my job at Air Products where I spent over 30 years, or via one of the non-profits that I had a long-term connection to (school boards, international students). About 45 individuals.

·       Other: those who do not fit one of the above categories. Only a dozen individuals.

That’s actually a pretty short list of ways that define “like me”. Genealogy, church, geography, shared experiences. There is nothing here about race, color, gender, sexual orientation, or any of the other aspects of identity politics or DEI. But are these “not like me” aspects hidden in the details or otherwise being used? Let me look at some of the details below the surface in each of the above categories.

 

Family

This group is defined by genealogical connection and the origins of each of the families listed are northern European (French, English, etc.) But that does not mean that every individual has that same heritage as people are free to marry others from different heritages. So, besides the French/English/Canadian members of the extended Pierpont family, I am aware of several other instances of this which have created connections to (1) Native Americans, (2) Haiti, and (3) Japan. But these individuals are still “Family”.

And there are many other aspects of “not like me” that get passed over. I am aware of several instances of same-sex relationships, political orientations that span the spectrum of our current political situation in the US, etc. But these individuals are still family, so I don’t let our differences get in the way.

 

Church

The part of Pennsylvania where I live was settled by German immigrants in the early 1700s. But with English immigrants to the N/E/S there was a fair amount of English connection as well. And the church reflected that heritage. But as the demographics of the area are changing, so are the demographics of the church. Just a few examples: (1) our senior pastor is Black; (2) our weekly church bulletin is available in Spanish as well as English; (3) the church hosts an Arabic-speaking congregation on Sunday afternoon and we now have two Syrian young men serving on our worship team; (4) the couple who sits in front of us consists of a young man who met and married a woman from Dominica while on a missions trip and they have since adopted four African-American siblings; and (5) as part of the church’s mission focus we currently have church members serving in Mexico, Jamaica, Germany, and Czech Republic.

Because of my genealogy interests, one of the “fun” things I like to do is see if I can build a rudimentary family tree for people in the church and see if there is any genealogical connection to me. I have found such a connection for about 2/3 of the church members/attendees (usually back about 400 years). But this leads to some interesting personal connections that might not otherwise happen. For example, there are a couple of ladies who are quite different than me. Because of some poor life choices, they are now part of a very low-income group and have no connections to other relatives. They came to our church because of our outreach to the community, but they didn’t have any other connections to it. Then they were approached by me with the message that they were distant cousins. That personal connection made a real difference. Now they look me up each Sunday morning and greet me with “hello cuz”.

 

Wolcott

Because Wolcott was not incorporated until 1796 and the population only grew beyond 1000 people after the paving of Wolcott Rd in the 1930s, the demographics of the residents were very reflective of the “melting pot” of the New England in the late 1800s and early 1900s. At one time I had undertaken a genealogical study of my high school classmates. While this study only is of the 2/3 of my friends in this category, the others are of this same demographic mixture.

About 1/3 of my classmates are related to me genealogically. However, there are a wide range of  countries represented. Nearly all are from Europe with the predominant ones being England, Ireland, Italy, France (actually French-Canadian), and Polish – these were the source of much of the immigration into that part of New England in that time period. Of my 170 classmates, only two had ancestry from Africa, only one had ancestry from Asia (Philippines), and there was no Spanish (either Spain or from South America). Some had very complex mixtures such as one girl whose heritage was from Germany, Russia, Poland, Ireland, and England, another whose heritage was from French-Canadian, Sweden, Ireland, Scotland, and England, and another whose heritage was from Italy, French-Canadian, Germany, Scotland, Ireland, and Netherlands. But we all were having the same experience – growing up in a close-knit community and attending the same new high school. So not only did we all get along quite well, but we continue to be in close contact with one another. I know from their postings that there are a wide range of political views in this group, but that doesn’t matter.

 

Work

The shared experience here is working together. The only item of significance is that there are about a dozen international students (1/4 of the total of this group). I’ll have more to say about this below.

 

Other

This remaining small category includes some of my neighbors, my best man (the only individual from my college years among my friends), and some individuals who I work with on genealogical issues of WWII soldiers.

 

International Aspect

While I have always lived and worked in the United States, I have had more than the typical amount of international travel. While this has enriched my life and given me a perspective that many do not have, most of the international friends among my 400 Facebook friends did not come from this travel. I count as “international” not those who simply have a heritage from another part of the world. Rather I only give this designation to someone who was born in another country, or who lives/works/worked there for a significant length of time.

With this designation, over 10% of my Facebook friends are international (41 out of roughly 400). These 41 individuals represent 24 different countries and thus a wide range of different backgrounds. For example, I have friends who are Buddhists from Thailand/Hong Kong, a Catholic from Indonesia, Christian from Ghana, Christian from Pakistan, missionaries in Mexico, Jamaica, Germany, Zambia, Kenya, as well as individuals from Norway, Belgium, England, France, Venezuela and other places.

Having interactions with this wide variety of individuals, as well as seeing other things that they post about their life, keeps me from being narrowly focused and only having a US-centric view of the world.

 

Conclusion

This 400-member collection of friends have a wide range of backgrounds and interests. Some I see regularly at church each week. Some I haven’t seen for several decades (since high school). Some I have never actually met outside of social media. Some share political views with me, and others have views that are totally the opposite. Some are going through physical or personal problems and I pray for them regularly (and let them know that I do), others do the same for me as I deal with various physical issues as I age. With each I have at least one thing in common – be it genealogy, religion, working together, or being from the same town.

But in each area where we are different I use our relationship to learn about things from their perspective. I get to learn about the discrimination that my native American nieces feel. I share with my same-sex cousins and try to understand them instead of argue with them. I pray with my high school classmates who, like me, are aging, having physical issues, losing a spouse, etc. I pray for my Pakistani friend who is poor and suffers from persecution on a regular basis (and she prays for me too!). I share with those in our church who have had very different life experiences but who worship the same God that I do.

 

That’s the key in all this. Instead of only associating with those who are just like you, look for one aspect that you can agree upon – be it shared DNA, living in the same town, working together, or some other shared experience like going to the same church – and then use our differences to learn from each other instead of using them to divide us. My life is so much richer having learned from my friends.

Yesterday was my 76^th birthday. Between yesterday and today, I received greetings from about 25% of my 400 friends. I love them all. And I hope to continue the relationship I have with each of them for many more years to come.

 

Pierpont Family History

In recent conversations with Anthony Pierpont (my 4^th cousin), he indicated that he had a copy of a document which showed the Pierpont family lineage going back to 1000 BC. Since the Pierpont family currently traces their lineage to Hugh de Pierrepont in Normandy around 980 AD, if true, this would triple the ancestral line of the family. Of course, I was interested! Later that day he located the document and sent me a copy of it.

This document is 27 pages long and was written by Howard Spencer Neal (1878-1947) (Howard was my 2^nd cousin, twice removed and a 1^st cousin, twice removed of Anthony. It was written by Howard in 1932 (when he was in his mid-50s) and appears to be based on a lot of historical documents which he lists on the first page. Howard served as an assistant historian of the PFA from 1935 until his death in 1947. True to the responsibilities of the PFA historian of the time (see responsibilities), the document is in several sections, each separately numbered (they were typed).

I have saved the document separately here. The page numbers are relative to the entire document, not the individual sections: 663 - Howard Neal History.pdf

·       Forward, page 1, lists his various sources

·       Danish Kings, pages 2-4 – see comments below

·       Pierpont family beginnings, page 5-7 – a summary of the family line from the beginnings in Normandy, to England, then to America (this material is drawn from Moffat’s book “Pierrepont Genealogies from Norman times to 1913”, but here only the material relative to the branch which went to America is included. However, there are a couple of interesting notes which I will investigate later.

·       First several generations of Rev. James Pierpont, pages 8-11 – also from Moffat

·       Separate charts for each of the children of Ezra and Mary [Blakeslee] Pierpont, pages 11-27 – from the records of the PFA which in 1932 was only focused on the Waterbury branch of the Pierponts. Since this document was prepared in 1932, the generations born toward the end of that period are somewhat sparse and there may be some errors. (For example, my mother and her siblings (they were born between 1920 and 1929)  are listed on page 26 but the order is incorrect – should be Clarence, Alice, Sylvia, Richard, Violet.)

Since the sections beginning with page 5 are essentially copies of the official PFA genealogy (as of 1932), I’ll not comment any further on it here. Rather, I want to concentrate my focus on the material from pages 2-4 which is the basis for extending the family line back another 2000 years.

 

Genealogical Tables of the Sovereigns of the World

I was able to locate the source of the genealogical table behind pages 2-4 of Neal’s research. It was in a book written by The Rev. William Betham in 1795 to the King of England. The book consists entirely of genealogical tables from various sources. For example, Chart I is from the Bible and lists the descendants of Adam down through the sons of Noah. (If you are interested, you can see the entire book here - 663 - Ancient Ancestors.pdf). But for purposes of this research, I’ve extracted three pertinent pages which contain charts CCCLXXIV through CCCLXXV and which document the Heathen Kings of Denmark and the Christian Kings of Denmark. You can refer to these pages here: 663 - Ancient Ancestors extract.pdf.  You will notice that the first chart begins with Humble of Zealand and toward the top of the last page you can see Gunilda who marries Earl Paling.

However, this chart stops just short of the material in Neal’s research! In order to make the connection complete, we need to confirm the following facts:

1.     Gunilda and Earl Paling have to have children, the most well-known would be Gunnora (2^nd wife of Richard, 1^st Duke of Normandy), and a younger sister Duvalina;

2.     Duvelina needs to marry Hugh, Bishop of Constance and Lord of Pierrepont in Picardy; and

3.     Duvelina and Hugh need to have 3 sons, including Ralph (ancestor of the Warrene family), Roger (ancestor of the Mortimers), and Godfrey (ancestor of the Pierreponts).

 

Other Sources:

Starting with Gunnor[a]:

There is a fairly scholarly article in Wikipedia on Gunnor/Gunnora (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnor#cite_note-11). It tells how she met Richard I of Normandy and acknowledges her later marriage to him.

Regarding point (1) above, it says that “The names of Gunnor’s parents are unknown”, but then acknowledges that one researcher believed that she was of noble Danish ancestry. Thus, it is possible that this is true.

Regarding points (2) and (3) above, there is reference to an extensive research article on “The Sisters and Nieces of Gunnor, Dutchess of Normandy” in The Genealogist magazine from 1920-1921 by G. H. White. You can read that article here (pages 57-65 and 128-132): https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Genealogist/MyM9AQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1.

While there does seem to be acknowledgement that some sister/niece of Gunnor married into the Warrene family, the name of that individual, their exact relationship to Gunnor, and whom within the Warrene family they married are subject to much speculation. There is no mention made of any connection to the Pierrepont family.

 

Starting with Hugh:

Starting our search with Hugh de Pierrepont instead of Gunnor[a], we find additional source material in WikiTree (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Pierrepont-45). There is some discussion about the stone bridge that is the basis for the name Pierrepont. I’ve already researched that extensively and posted my research in a prior blog entry: https://ramblinrussells.blogspot.com/2022/01/origin-of-pierrepont-family.html. So I’ll not repeat that research here.

But there is another interesting reference in this WikiTree article that pertains to our current situation. In the Sussex Archaeological Collections, Vol 11, Page 84, this WikiTree article says “Hugh, Bishop of Coutances … marries Niece of Gunnors, wife of Richard I, Duke of Normandy” and further names his grandsons as Robert de Pierpoint (1059-1086) and Godfrey de Pierpoint (1059-1086). Let’s look at that reference https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sussex_Archaeological_Collections_Relati/uUMJAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA84&printsec=frontcover.

Although the reference is to a chart on page 84, one really needs to take this in the context of the supporting research about Hurst Pierpont (one of the largest estates in Sussex) which begins on page 50. This survey starts with the Domesday survey, i.e. the documentation of the Norman families in England after their success at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. The original text, which was quite extensive, was in Latin, but this book in the Sussex Archaeological Collection is in English. It has pretty detailed information about the owners of Hurst Pierpont and it’s owners over many generations and the family’s eventual moving to Nottingham and Holme-Pierpont which they inherited through a marriage with Annora Manvers.

I’m not going into all the details of this research, but let’s look at how it related to the three questions we started with:

·       Points (1) and (2), while there is no mention of the parents of Gunnor here, it does seem to pretty clearly reference an unnamed woman who is a niece of Gunnor and who marries Hugh. It also gives a lot of credence to Hugh, Bishop of Coutances being the same person as Hugh de Pierrepont who lived in Picardy.

·       Regarding point (3), there is a very strong case made for Hugh and his unnamed wife being the parents of not just Godfrey de Pierrepont, but of Roger de Mortimer and Ralph de Warrene as well. Each of these three brothers became the progenitor of a branch of their family.

 

Starting with Huge de Coutances:

There is a great deal of information in geni.com (see https://www.geni.com/people/Hugh-de-Coutances-Bishop-of-Coutances/6000000015019969348) which goes into a lot of detail about Hugh and his purported sons, Roger de Mortimer, Ralph de Warrene, and Godfrey. This detail is a mixture of Latin, French, and English and shows some of the difficulties in reconciling various sources with regard to these relationships. This kind of scholarly research is interesting to try and decipher and is not for the faint-hearted.

 

Other Related Research:

There is information in a family tree on familysearch.org (see https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/GVDV-9DB) which has a family line beginning with Hugues de Wasnad Sr (905) -> Hugues de Wasnad Jr (930) -> Hugh de Pierrepont I (956), married Clemence (958) -> Sir Hugh de Pierrepont II (980), married Liutgarde de Trepel (980) -> Hugh de Pierrepoint (995) and Geoffroi de Pierrepont de Trepel III (1025). But with five consecutive Hughs and no source information for any of them, I have no reason to believe that some individual by the name of Hugues de Wasnad is in our family tree, nor to believe that someone named Clemence or Liutgarde de Trepel belongs in our family tree. However, interestingly, there is a very short article in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugues_de_Pierrepont) which makes reference to Hugues de Wasnad being the father of a Hugh de Pierrepont who lived in France in the early 1200s. Perhaps this is the source of confusion for the relationships which are attributed to have happened some 200+ years previous. It appears that the source of this information is found on page 200 in the Chronique de Hainaut (see https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chronique_de_Hainaut/v6U7AQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22hugues+de+wasnad%22&pg=PA200&printsec=frontcover) although here it is in French instead of English.

 

Conclusion

Not all scholars agree and there is a certain amount of speculation around what the relationships between individuals are when two names appear in the same transaction, or related to the same event. So, while not being able to be absolutely certain, there is considerable support for the relationships that we started with, namely that:

1.     Gunnor[a] was a member of the Danish royal family and she married Richard, 1^st Duke of Normandy;

2.     An unnamed female, who was most likely the niece of Gunnor[a], married Hugh, Bishop of Constance and Lord of Pierrepont in Picardy; and

3.     Hugh and his wife had 3 sons, including Ralph (ancestor of the Warrene family), Roger (ancestor of the Mortimers), and Godfrey (ancestor of the Pierreponts).

Based on this preponderance of the evidence, my tendency as a genealogical researcher is to accept the purported connection of the line of Danish kings through a female who married Hugh. While Hugh may have been the first to carry the de Pierrepont name because he lived in a castle near a stone bridge in Normandy, the bloodlines he passed along to his children and later descendants included the Danish roots of his wife.

Thus, we in the collective de Pierrepont/Pierrepont/Pierpont/Pierpoint family can be relatively confident that our genealogy is traceable not just back to 980 in Normandy, but back another 2000 years to Humble of Zealand in 1038 BC!

 

Pierpont Family Association Historian

When the Pierpont Family Association (PFA) was formed in 1923, they noted that they were the “North Haven branch of Pierponts”. By this, they meant that they were all the descendants of Ezra Pierpont (1757-1842) who had moved from North Haven, CT, to the East Farms area of Waterbury, CT. Ezra had moved to Waterbury upon his marriage to Mary Blakeslee in 1783, so this group represented 140 years of Pierponts. Ezra’s great-great-grandchildren were in their 40’s at the time, so this only represented 5-6 generations of the family. Even so, there were 80 people at the first reunion in 1924.

One of the tasks during those early years was to document all the individuals involved and their relationship back to Ezra and Mary. They recorded this 140 years of individuals and created a family “historian” whose principal responsibility was to keep the information up-to-date by recording any births/marriages/deaths each year and reporting on them at the next annual meeting. Since nearly everyone lived in a relatively small area in Waterbury, that was not too difficult a task.

In the mid-1930s, the group decided to expand their focus and to include all the “New England Pierponts”, thus going back another four generations to brothers John and Robert Pierpont who had settled in Roxbury, MA, around 1640. Many of the line had “daughtered out” (see details), so this effectively only added three generations back to Rev. James from New Haven. But it was still a considerable expansion. The PFA then assigned assistant historians to the various family lines in other places, such as a historian for the Pierpont families who lived in Litchfield. These assistants would record the births/marriage/deaths in their family lines and report them back to the primary historian for reporting at the annual meeting.

The ”historian” function of the PFA remained this way for several generations. The “bible” of the family was represented by R. Burnham Moffat’s book, “Pierrepont Genealogies from Norman times to 1913” and the PFA historians were responsible for all the updates since 1913. Early genealogy charts of the PFA showed Ezra and Mary at the center of the PFA and fanning out from there. It was a half-century later when Bob Kraft became the historian of the PFA and began converting the genealogical charts (now becoming quite long and complicated with each new generation) into a format that numbered each individual and used these numbers instead of family charts to show relationships.

While there was occasional new research, the “historian” function continued to be just a record-keeping function. However, the world was changing – the Pierpont family was no longer centered around Waterbury, or even in New England. Children were going to college and then going off to other parts of the US, or even to other parts of the world. We were discovering new family lines of Pierponts/Pierpoints/Pierreponts in places like Canada, Tennessee, England, and France – and they wanted to connect with us as part of the world-wide Pierpont family. Keeping our records up-to-date with family lines who did not have an interest in genealogy and who lived in far-off areas was nearly impossible. Trying to document our connections to these new groups of family members was challenging as those connections were often centuries ago and were not well documented.

Thus, the record-keeping function of the PFA historian tracking births/marriages/deaths is next to impossible. And new skills are needed to document relationships to these newly discovered family groups. And so, for the past few decades, (including the time that I have been first a co-historian of the PFA and now with the death of Bob Kraft, the only “historian” of the PFA), it’s been necessary to abandon trying to keep our old form of documentation up-to-date. But now I get to use my research and genealogical skills in other ways to investigate the various aspects of the PFA and its rich history!

 

Who are the Pierponts?

There are two Pierpont/Pierpoint family reunions taking place this summer. The Pierpont Family Association (PFA), who are mostly the descendants of two brothers who came to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in about 1640, are having their 101^st consecutive reunion at Hammonasett State Park in Connecticut in June. And the Pierpont/Pierpoint family, who are mostly the descendants of Henry Pierpoint who came to Maryland in 1650 are meeting in western Tennessee in September. But there are also family members elsewhere in the US, in Canada, in the UK, and in France.

But who are all these groups of people? Are they all related to each other? And if so, how?

I’ve done a lot of research on behalf of the greater Pierpont family over the years, and I’d like to first pull it together, then list all these various groups and tie them together as best I can.

 

Beginnings in Normandy

No one disputes that the family had their origins in Normandy, France, in the 900s. While it is not known for certain who was the first person to bear that name, the earliest which has been documented is Sir Hugh de Pierrepont who was born around 980. The name de Pierrepont, meaning of/from the stone bridge, has been the subject of considerable research over the years.

My own contribution to this research can be found here, where I explored the various sites around France and identified the most likely location for where Hugh lived. I’ll not repeat that research here, except to note that the de Pierrepont name can still be found in France now – over 1000 years later!   

 

Invasion of England

Sir Robert de Pierrepont, a grandson of Sir Hugh, was one of the leaders under William the Conqueror during the Norman invasion of England in 1066. Once the Normans had taken over southern England, Robert was rewarded with land in what came to be called Hurst Pierrepont in Lewes, Sussex, on the south coast of England. However, within a few generations, the family had relocated to Halliwell in Lancashire. And just two generations later, the family seat moved to the town of Holme, Nottinghamshire, which would eventually be renamed as Holme Pierrepont. This would remain the family home for the next several hundred years.

The below picture of an official genealogy of the Pierrepont family, which was drawn in 1764, shows the early generations of the family, including their place of residence.

[Beginning in England]

 

Moving to the Americas

There were a number of family members who made the trip to the Americas, with documented immigrations beginning in the 1600s, and continuing until the 1900s. I’ll give more details on these below as I explore the various branches of the family tree.

 

The Problem of Changing Names

The spelling of the Pierpont family name has gone through many changes over the last 1000 years. It’s tempting to simplify these changes by attributing the original name of “de Pierrepont” to those in France, to drop the “de” and give a name of “Pierrepont” to the generations in England, and to anglicize the name to a simple “Pierpont” or “Pierpoint” in the US. But things are not that simple!

While the family members still in France continue to use “de Pierrepont”, the “de” was not dropped immediately upon the Norman invasion in 1066. The above picture of the top portion of an English genealogy shows that the early generations continued to use the “de Pierrepont” surname. It was not until the 1300s that the “de” was dropped.

[Dropping the de]

 

While the “Pierrepont” spelling dominated in England after the 1300s, it was only consistent within the “peers” of the family. Thus, in the blogs I’ve written on this topic (see here and here), I’ve not had to deal with other variations. But outside of this main line, family members were merchants and other professions and were often not even literate.

The consonants in the name (P_rp_nt) stayed pretty consistent. But the first syllable was sometimes rendered “Pier”, “Peir”, “Par”, “Per” as well as the original “Pierre”. And the last syllable might be “Pont”, “Point”, “Poynt” or “Pointe”. Thus, variants such as Pierpont, Pierpoint, Peirpont, Parpoynt, Perpoynt, Perpointe, and others were often recorded. The name was pronounced per local dialects, but written down according to the hearing of the listener. Among the peerage, since the name was also associated with the estate (Hurst Pierrepont or later “Holme Pierrepont), the name remained consistent, but the farther one lived from these estates, the more variation crept in over the centuries. I’ve documented a number of these variants here just among the early New England settlers of the family. Even as late as 1848, my great*3 grandfather, Austin Pierpont, had his name chiseled on his tombstone as “Pierpoint” (see https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/53032273/austin-pierpoint).  

 

The Problem of English Hereditary Rules

In England, not only were titles subject to rules of inheritance such as being only able to be passed to males or only to legitimate children, but property was also subject to those same types of rules. There was benefit to this as it kept estates intact. But if you were a second son, your only chance of inheritance would be if your older brother died without a male heir, and if you were a third or greater son, you would have to leave the family home and make your living through something other than the taxes that were paid by the individuals working on the family lands.

This also meant that the family name would not be recorded or preserved over the following centuries, but would be even more likely to be distorted as in the above discussion. As you’ll see in the below, most of those who came to North America no longer carried the Pierrepont name.

 

Many Groups – All with a Common Heritage

Over the past decade or so, during which I have used my interest in genealogy and during which I’ve been privileged to be a co-historian of the Pierpont Family Association, I’ve been able to make connections to several distinct groups of Pierpont/Pierpoint/Pierrepont/de Pierrepont family members. The power of computers in investigating ancestral records and the power of social media (principally Facebook) in establishing connections has enabled research far more easily than in past generations. Here are the groups which I’ve investigated – groups which are not necessarily proved to be connected, but which connection is still quite certain.

 

Group 1 – the French de Pierreponts

As I mentioned above, while Robert de Pierrepont went to England in 1066 with William the Conqueror, he left behind his uncles and any male siblings or cousins. The de Pierrepont family name has continued on to this day. Two current members of this French branch of the family have joined the Pierpont Family Association and, with the help of Google Translate, I have had conversations with them in French.

 

Group 2 – the English Pierreponts

There have been family members in England for over 950 years. While the line of those in the peerage has “daughtered out”, there are others still living there. Like our French relatives, there are a couple of individuals who still carry the Pierrepont family name and who have joined the PFA.

 

Group 3 – the New England Pierponts

Most of my research into the Pierpont family has been on behalf of the Pierpont Family Association (PFA) of New England. While this branch of the family has been in New England since around 1640, many of the lines from the two brothers, John and Robert, daughtered out fairly early on, so all the members in this family line are descendants of the Rev. James Pierpont who got his education at Harvard and who became the pastor of the Congregational Church in New Haven, CT (see this daughtering out here). While most of these family members carry the Pierpont surname, in the early years there were many other variations. One of the Rev James grandsons changed his name back to Pierrepont, so that surname has also been passed along through that sub-branch.

This is the only branch where we have established a definite connection back to the main English line. The father of John and Robert, James, had also come to New England later in his life. But James’ father was William Pierrepont. He was unfortunately the third son of his father and so had to leave the family home (Holme Pierrepont) in Nottinghamshire and make his living in a small town nearby. In the process, he encountered many of the Puritans in that area – likely the primary reason that his grandsons, and later his son, made the trek to New England to join their Puritan friends in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. You can see William listed in the genealogical tree of the Pierrepont peers from the drawing in 1764. He is listed simply as “third son” and his marriage and any offspring are not even shown.

[William]

 

Group 4 – the Maryland/Virginia Pierpoints

The second largest group of Pierpont/Pierpoints in the US are the descendants of Henry Pierpoint who came to America in the mid-1600s. I’ve done some fairly detailed analysis of this branch of the family in an effort to see if/how they were connected to the New England branch of the family (see here), but like other researchers have not been successful. There are enough matches of names and similarities of places that it’s pretty certain that these two branches connect back in England, but to-date a connection has not been documented. On social media, the NE and MD/VA Facebook groups have a number of joint members and we will stay connected in years to come. A member of the MD/VA branch attended the PFA meeting in 1960 and just a few years ago one of the PFA members attended a reunion of the MD/VA branch. A link to this blog will be sent to the members of both branches for everyone’s reading pleasure.

 

Group 5 – the Maine Pierponts

The Maine branch of the family are the descendants of Richard Pierpont/Pierpoint. He was born in Liverpool, England in 1790, came to Norfolk, VA in 1811, and just a few years later moved to Washington, ME. His naturalization record (from 1857) has his surname as Pierpont, but he signed with an “X” as he was illiterate. His grave lists his surname as Pierpoint. Other records of the time for him and his children have his name listed variously as Pierpont or Pierpoint. Three of his great*3 granddaughters have joined the PFA. While the PFA is happy to have them be part of the ”New England Pierpont” association (PFA), the nearly 200 years between the immigration of Richard and John and Robert has made it difficult to document a genealogical connection.

 

Group 6 – the Utah Pierponts

The Utah branch of the family are the descendants of Thomas Fairclough Pierpont. He was born in Lancashire, England in 1836 and came to New York in 1851. There he married, became a Mormon, moved to Canada during the US Civil War, then moved to Salt Lake City in late 1865. I’ve documented his story here. I’ve traced his family tree back to the mid-1500s and noted that there were various spellings such as Parpoynt and Pierpoint until Thomas’ father, John Pierpont changed the family name one more time. But I have not been able to make a connection to any of the other Pierpont groups. As a relatively recently immigrant group, even with the Mormon tradition of multiple wives and large families, this is still a relatively small group.

 

Group 7 – the Canadian Pierreponts

Although the prior four groups came to what is now the United States, there is also one family branch which came to Canada. I’ve written about them before here. As noted in that blog, Samuel Whitworth Pierrepont came to western Canada (Manitoba) in 1911. He had been born in Nottinghamshire in 1887, married in 1911, came to Canada just 3 weeks later as an indentured servant to work off the cost of his passage, then sponsored his wife to come join him in 1912. While he and his ancestors were from several small towns just a few miles from Holme Pierrepont, because it was nearly 300 years from when John and Robert came to New England, it was too many years to make a definitive connection to the New England Pierponts. But it is quite likely that the two groups are connected. Only having been here for slightly more than 100 years, this group is pretty small, but one of the great-granddaughters of Samuel has joined the PFA and we have regular communication with her.

 

Group 8 – the Wolcott Pierpoints

In my hometown of Wolcott, CT, there was a Pierpoint family. Upon investigation, they were the descendants of Jesse Pierpoint who had been born in Birmingham, Warwickshire, England in 1860 and who had come to Rhode Island in 1880. This family had been in Warwickshire for over 100 years and had been in Cheshire before that. The spelling of Pierpoint in this family line appears to have been unchanged since the 1600s.

 

Other Groups

It’s been nearly 400 years since the first family members came to North America. It is pretty likely that there have been other members of the greater Pierpont/Pierpoint family who have done so just as the above groups (as an example, the Wolcott Pierpoint family would be unknown to the other groups except that they happened to be in the same town as a few members of the PFA). But finding records that can document exact family connections between these groups over such a long period of time is difficult and may even be impossible. But I have not yet found any groups/individuals where there is any indication that they are not connected. Some of the above groups have come to our attention just recently and we are happy to have additional family members.

 

Conclusion

Despite the considerable changes/variations in surname over the last 1000 years, all these Pierpont/Pierpoint/Pierrepont/de Pierrepont/etc. groups share a common heritage. I have documented all the groups that I am aware of, but there may be others. All of them are descendants of the original de Pierrepont in what is now Normandy, France. And all of them, whatever the spelling of their surname, and even if they no longer have the surname at all because of subsequent marriages and name changes, can be proud to be part of this connected family! My mother was a Pierpont, and my ancestral line includes a number of the variant spellings. But I am proud of my heritage and my connections to all my cousins, however distantly we may be connected!

If you are reading this post, what is your story? Are you a member of one of the groups listed above? Or are you a member of some other branch of the family? Share this post with other members of the greater Pierpont/Pierpoint/etc. family. And share your own connection as well. We’re all family and we all enjoy talking with other family members!