A New DNA Match

 I have a very extensive family tree which I maintain in Ancestry.com. I’ve also had my DNA examined and put there to help find relatives. I’ve tracked down most of my close relatives, so I know that there are no incidents of hidden relatives. But I had stopped looking at the distant matches because they are so extensive. My paternal grandmother’s father was an Ashkenazi Jew and because of the frequent inter-marriage between members of that group of individuals I have over 2500 people who share a small portion of my DNA.

            However, I recently got a text message from one of my 3^rd cousins, Pat, who also is active in using Ancestry.com. The first few lines of her text were “This is an Ancestry question for you. I had a new match today for Alexander _ @ 39 cM. He is showing 3^rd great grandparents as Benoni Slocum + Phebe Russell in Dutchess, NY.”

I checked, and as Pat indicated, found that Alexander was also in my list of distant matches. I have a 37 cM DNA match with him. Since Pat and I share 119 cM of DNA and the amount of match goes down by about 50% with each generation, that means that Alexander is about 2 generations farther up the tree, making him a 5^th cousin to both Pat and me.

 

The Russell family line

            Our Russell line in the US began with Robert Russell (1730-1811) who was a poor, illiterate Scottish farmer who came to the US around 1750 and settled in the Hudson River valley of NY. His son, John, was born in 1756 and served in the local militia during the Revolutionary War. John’s son, Caleb (1775-1830) was the oldest of what would eventually turn into 15 children of John. Caleb and his wife Parmea had 10 children, one of whom was Silas (1803-1888). Silas’s youngest child was Walter (1852-1895), who is the common ancestor of Pat and me. He is our great-great-grandfather. So, if Alexander is connected two generations farther up this tree, he would have been descended from Caleb.

            I had investigated all the children of Caleb and Parmea, but information is somewhat scarce as they lived in the far eastern corner of Dutchess County, NY, and they were illiterate farmers. The primary records available were the US census records of 1800, 1810, 1820, 1830. But these census records only listed the name of the head-of-household with tic marks for each individual in the family by gender and age ranges. In many cases, especially the men, I was later able to find them married and living nearby, but since there were no recorded marriage records for this family, it was more difficult. There was one female who was in the 0-10 range in the 1810 census and in the 15-40 range in the 1820 census, but absent thereafter. I had recorded her as Unk Russell, born about 1805-1810 in order to fit her into those ranges, but had no other information about her.

 

The Slocum Family

Alexander’s surname was of Italian origin, so he would not be connected to me via DNA through that side of the family. However, his mother’s maiden name was Slocum and that part of his family line also came from Dutchess County. He had recorded the name of his great*3 grandparents as Benoni Slocum and Phebe/Phibi Russell (note that names were often recorded phonetically). There was no information about Phebe’s parents. And there were many other references to Phebe/Phoebe/Phibi in other places, but there was no reference to her parents in any of those trees.

Later records such as census records and a death record all showed her as being born around 1807, 4 years before her husband, Benoni. So these were all consistent with the possibility of her being the same individual as the Unk Russell in my family tree who was born somewhere in the 1805-1810 timeframe. But could I either confirm my belief, or at least gather enough information to give an indication beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

Confirming my Suspicions

            Other than being of the proper age and being in the same county, what else could I find? I went back to the census records of 1810 and 1820 for Caleb Russell that I had used to get an age estimate for his Unk daughter. But rather than look at just the single line for the Russell family, I looked at the rest of that page. And there was my first bit of “proof”. Living only 9 houses away from Caleb was the line for David Slocum, the father of Benoni. That was true in both those census records – taken 10 years apart. So the children of Caleb and the children of David would have grown up knowing each other, going to the same small schoolhouse, etc. While Caleb’s daughter was four years older than Benoni (as confirmed by later census records), they would still have been friends for many years.

            I also discovered one other “coincidence”. Caleb had a younger sister, Phebe. This sister had gotten married around 1805 and thus changed her name from Phebe Russell to Phebe Wixson. So when Caleb had a daughter just a few years later, he could have easily named her in honor of his sister.

            Phebe and Benoni Slocum married around 1830 (the reason she was not found in the 1830 census). They had their first child in 1833. Thus, it’s quite possible that they were on their honeymoon in 1830 which is why neither of them appear in the census records for that year.

 

Conclusion

While I have no definitive “proof” that Benoni Slocum’s wife was Phebe Russell, I have more than enough evidence to make this conclusion. Not only was she born in the appropriate timeframe (4 years before Benoni), but she lived not just in the same county, but right down the street from her future husband. And her father would have just been honoring his younger sister who had the same name.

            I would not have had the impetus to do this investigation into the life of my great*4 aunt except for the DNA match from Ancestry.  I would have not had a reason to do the investigation of this DNA match as it was buried deep within the 2000 DNA matches from my Ashkenazi Jewish ancestors except that my cousin, Pat was no hindered by this and saw the new DNA match being posted.

            So, welcome to my new 5^th cousin, Alexander – the latest identified member of the extended Russell family!

Harold Granger Pierpont – Who, When, Where

I’ve known the basic story of my grandfather’s birth, how his mother died as result of complications of childbirth, and how he was raised by a family in the next town. So when I found his baptism certificate in the box of papers that my mother had kept and then passed on to me, it did not originally seem like it added much to the story. But then I thought I put it in context with all the other facts that I knew or could find out and see if it all hung together.

[Baptism Certificate]

 

Just a bunch of names and a date on a pre-printed certificate. But whose names? And what date? And does even the form itself help to tell a story?

-        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My grandfather’s uncle, Charles Somers Miller, kept a very detailed diary for his entire life. Let’s also look at his entries for three days in March of 1898.

3/3/1898

“When my wife got home from the Grange, she was greatly excited because her brother Wilson L. Pierpont (who is Master of the Grange) and his wife Annie (who is Secretary of the  Grange) were in their respective places when she got there, after a time recess was declared and she did not see Wilson or Annie again, but just before the Grange closed a note was received by the acting Secretary which stated that the Master and Secretary had a new ten pound son.”

3/17/1898

“This noon Mr.  Tucker asked me if Wilson Pierpont’s wife was dead. He said that Mrs. Dickinson heard the little French girls ask Austin B. Pierpont how she was and he only said a few words and they replied oh isn’t it too bad, so she judged that she was dead. I went and asked Paul Hesphalt and he said that she was. It seems that she died at about 8 o’clock this morning. She was 39 years old, the same age as myself. She leaves an infant child and six children.”

3/20/1898

“… This I think was the largest funeral ever held in the Chapel, all the seats being filled as well as all of the standing room being taken and a great crowd outside who could not get it. Rev. Mr. Buckley of Trinity Church officiated. … There must have been over 400 people present.”

Don’t seem to be any inconsistencies with the information from the baptism certificate. But there are a few specifics in the wording that are much more important than they first seem. Let’s do some detailed research, not specifically on my grandfather, but on the practice of baptism and of the history of the churches in Waterbury where this takes place.

-        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

While it’s not true in churches which practice believer’s baptism (such as the one which I belong to) those which practice infant baptism may feel that there is much more to it than just a ceremony. A simple search notes that “In a baptism ceremony, naming an infant is a significant part of the ritual…” That is often the first time that the infant’s name is actually given. The church named on this baptism certificate, Trinity Church in Waterbury, was an Episcopal church which practiced this. Note carefully the wording for the diary entry of 3/17/1898, “She leaves an infant child and six children.” Harold was called an “infant child” and he was NOT counted among the “six children.” Even his name, Harold Granger, was not given to him until he was baptized at age four months.

Next, let’s look at the location where this baptism took place. While the form has pre-printed on it “in Trinity Church, Waterbury,” did it take place there? The answer is, surprisingly, “no.” I found an interesting book on the history of the Waterbury Episcopal church.

[Episcopal Church]

 

On page 171, it gives the officers of the Trinity Parish, including the Rector, Rev. Frederick D. Buckley, M.A. Also, the first vestryman is named as C. J. Pierpont. But this is not Charles J. Pierpont, Wilson’s father, as he passed away in 1884. Rather, it’s Wilson’s brother, Charles J. Pierpont, Jr. Trinity Parish/Church is located at 25 Prospect St. where the back side of the Immaculata Basilica is located today (it was built on that site in the 1920’s – see https://www.waterburybasilica.org/parish-history).  But it doesn’t make sense that the Pierpont family would travel all the way downtown from where they lived in East Farms just for a baptism. Also, look at Charles Miller’s diary for 3/20/1898 where the funeral for Annie Pierpont was held at the “Chapel” on a Sunday afternoon with Rev. Buckley conducting the service.

To resolve this situation, one must understand that the “Chapel” being referred to is the Mill Plain Chapel – which is still there with the larger Mill Plain Church having been built next door during the 1920’s. Mill Plain was/is a “union” chapel/church. They did not have a pastor of their own. Rather, they were served by a number of pastors from downtown who traveled out each Sunday afternoon from other churches. One of these visiting pastors was Rev. Buckley from Trinity Parish/Church. Since these visiting individuals were sometimes Rectors (like Rev. Buckley), but other times pastors or ministers, Mill Plain did not have their own stationary, relying on the visitor to bring their own – hence the wording “IN” on this baptism certificate.

-        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This also gives the rationale for the list of names on the baptism certificate.

·       Harold Granger Pierpont is receiving his official name for the first time

·       Wilson L. Pierpont is the father

·       Annie E. Pierpont is the mother – even though she died four months prior

·       Edith L. Pierpont is Harold’s older sister – she’s 17, but is no longer attending school and has been taking care of all her younger siblings (all male), including Harold

·       F. D. Buckley from Trinity Parish is the visiting rector for the day (it’s a Sunday afternoon) and who has supplied the certificate

·       Nellie A. Buckley is the rector’s wife and is signing as a witness (sponsor)

-        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The only remaining question is when did Harold move to Prospect where he was raised by Samuel and Hattie Nichols. We know that it was some time after July 1898 when he was baptized in the presence of his father and sister and before June 1900 when he appears in the 1900 census in Prospect living with Sam and Hattie as a “boarder”. (Interestingly, the census taker for the Nichols household was Stephen Talmadge, the grandfather of Sara Blackman whom Harold went to school with in Prospect and eventually married!)

This has been a fun bit of research!

 

 

 

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!