Recently I was contacted by an individual, Seth Russell, who had read some of my blogs on my Russell lineage and was asking for my assistance in determining his correct lineage back to the origins of the family name in Normandy. Seth lived in Australia where his grandfather had moved back in 1969. He had his lineage back in England for several generations, but he was having some difficulty connecting it to the main Russell lines.
I located his family tree in
ancestry.com and began looking at it for consistency. Over the course of
several days, we had a dialog about the problem areas and he did further
research based on my comments. The below documents his research and my
comments. If we are able to establish a connection, then Seth will likely be
something like a 17th cousin with a few removes thrown in as he is a
few generations younger than I am.
In order for a lineage to be
accurate, there must be consistency in dates and places of birth/death compared
to one’s parents. Families may move from time to time, but generally do not
“jump around”, especially in former times. Also, children should be born more
than 20 years after their parents, and births after parents are 40 would be
unusual and births after age 50 are indicative of errors.
I have made a close examination
of all the below lines, checking for this type of consistency and any remaining
issues are noted in red. [Note that the last
name of Russell has been left off of each line to make for better readability.]
Confirmed recent
generations
Seth’s research for the last 300+
years (11 generations) has no questions in it. There is consistency in all
dates and places. I list it here for completeness. The question is how to get
from the Russell lines in England to here (see my prior blog on Russell
Lineage).
·
Thomas (1680-1735)
o
Starting in Oxfordshire
·
John (1705-1782)
·
John (1743-1830)
·
William (1770-1840)
·
Charles (1804-1879)
·
William (1834-1913)
·
William ‘Buff’ (1862-1942)
·
Bertie John (1907-1983)
·
Michael George (1940-)
o
Moved to Australia in 1969
·
Mark Anthony (1970-)
·
Seth Eden (2004-)
First attempt
This one began at the same point
as what I had called my second American line.
·
Starting with Stephen Gascoigne (1360-1438)
o
Starting in Dorset
·
Sir Henry Gascoigne (1401-1463)
·
Sir Thomas (1430-1505)
o
b. Suffolk, d. Dorset,
are these places reversed?
·
Sir John (1452-1479)
o
Settling down in Suffolk
·
William (1479-1521)
·
William (1509-1559)
·
William (1537-1570)
·
William (1558-?)
o
Date gap of 98 years to
his alleged son indicates missing individuals
o
See extended explanation
below
·
William (1656-1728)
o
b. Oxfordshire, d.
Sussex?
·
Thomas (1680-1735) continuing as documented
above
As noted
at the beginning, dates and places need to pass a reasonability test. In this
particular instance, there are 122 years between William (1558-?) and Thomas
(1680-1735). That is a sufficient time gap to allow for most likely four
generations. In addition, there should be a change of location from where those
before this gap lived (Suffolk) and those after this gap lived (Oxfordshire).
Many
trees have put William (1656-1728) in the gap and left him being born nearly
100 years after his alleged father. And Williams’s place of birth and death is
also totally contrary to the needed transition from Suffolk to Oxfordshire. But
there are no available records indicating any other father for Thomas, and many
trees have no children from William (1558). So, no one has found a solution
that could properly connect the Russell line above this point to the one below
this point. It’s quite likely that these lines do not connect at all.
Second attempt with small corrections
applied
This one begins a couple of
generations down in what I had called the first American line in my earlier
blog.
·
Robert (1422-1502)
o
In Strensham, Worcestershire
·
Robert (1460-1525)
o
This generation was
missing, but corrected
·
Sir John (14681494-1556)
·
Sir Thomas (1520-1574)
o
According to
find-a-grave, father is John (1494-1556) - corrected
·
Richard (1543-1612)
o
b. Sussex, d. Sussex –
another abrupt change of location
·
Thomas (1570-1633)
o
Continuing in Sussex
·
Thomas (1589-1641)
·
Thomas (1611-1645)
·
William (1630-1673)
·
William (1656-1728)
o
b. Oxfordshire, d.
Sussex – are these locations reversed?
·
Thomas (1680-1735) continuing as documented
above
Current Status
After applying the corrections to
Seth’s second attempt, there are only two remaining errors of consistency. The
first is the location of birth/death of William (1656-1728). I believe that the
two locations are reversed, i.e., he was born in Sussex and died in
Oxfordshire. But the second is still a significant issue, i.e., Thomas (1520-1574)
was born and died in the north of England in Worcestershire, but his alleged
son, Richard (1543-1612) is shown as born in Sussex in the south of England.
Either one of these locations is incorrect, or Richard is not the son of
Thomas.
There is an interesting comment
in the second reference below that “the name of Russell was ‘somewhat common’ …”.
It is used in the reference to try and ascertain which of three contemporary “John
Russell’s” were being referred to – one from Worcestershire, on from
Buckinghamshire, and a third from Little Malvern (also in Worcestershire). In
parliament, the first was called ‘senior’, the second was called ‘junior’ – a designation
that was not indicative of a father-son relationship, but a reference to who
had served the longest. The third had not been knighted.
Perhaps this same type of “somewhat
common” is the cause of confusion on who is the father of Richard. As of this
writing, this last issue has not been resolved.
Resources
·
https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/russell-sir-thomas-1520-74
·
https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/russell-john-i-149394-1556
No comments:
Post a Comment