Saturday, December 31, 2011

Posts of interest - 2011

As a means (an attempt) to freeze a point in time (which we know is not possible), the last post of 2011 will list the top four posts in terms of having been read (well, views, anyway). Perhaps, this will be a yearly event.

Aside: As said in Mission and Method, posts are to contribute to a theme, though there may be divergent ones from time to time. Blogs allow categories, but these are problematic since they collect and present in a time order. From time to time, there ought to be a super-post that gives a more coherent view (here is an example - Truth, Fiction, and Finance). Perhaps, that type of thing will be done more often in the coming year.

Of course, I would be derelict if I didn't opine on why the interest.

Posts of interest, as of today:
  • -- Gardners and Gardners -- what's in a name? I have found off-spring for a lot of those on Dr. Frank A's list. Some writers have suggested relationships between these Gardners. Of course, there are some not in the book (they now appear in internet searches -- what would Dr. Frank A. think of the new resources?). One of our goals is to look further at these types of things. It cannot be done without going back across the water. Following paperwork can be problematic, as the genealogists know. Conjectures are nice, if supported; in fact, we'll have an example of that shortly in regard to Thomas and Margaret. There are too many gaps, in many cases. We can't just fill these in without some thoughtful reason. Some families have on-going research that is supported by DNA analysis. One that I found to be interesting is the Gordon family's work. 
  • Historical genealogy -- it is interesting that a very recent, and popular, series of books (at least, one of these was filmed) by a Santa Fe writer was based upon the War of the Roses. However, the tales were fantasized such as to appeal to the modern mind. Actually, just re-looking with a new eye ought to be very informative. That is one of our goals.
  • Welcome -- being a new blog, this post would still pop up. At some point, hopefully, another thread will supersede. Any predictions? 
  • Two generations -- we use nine children, as did the Great Migration study (six pages on Thomas). Some have added others. We will include all of the grand-children here, at least in a list, this coming year. We, inadvertently, had one featured this year: Ruth Gardner. That was due to my happening upon Frances Hill's book.  
Recaps: 2018, 2017 (missing), 20162015201420132012, 2011.

Remarks: Modified: 12/15/2018

12/29/2012 --  Summary - 2012.

02/26/2013 --  See Wikipedia for a discussion about William Gardner whose page has been deleted.

12/15/2018- Added in links to recaps from the beginning.


  1. Query - I know that you work off the work of Frank A. - what are your views on the George McCracken article about Damaris Shattuck Gardner and the wives of George Gardner? It is in American Genealogist, Vol 30, if you haven't seen it. Very interesting.


    1. Sorry about the delay. Good questions.

      Will need to read more about George? I posted a link about your questions in the post (next) about Margaret.

      It seems a good time to bring up Margaret and Unknown. Why is it that TAG 30:156 is quoted as saying to NOT use Margaret? See red markings in the image. We can, at least, use her first name.

    2. This is an interesting bit of discussion to read. It piques my interest to dig deeper.

      On a quick read, Dr. Frank's thoughts hold up throughout the article. What I see (in his efforts) is an attempt, 300 years after the fact, to piece together a coherent story from fragments of information, some (a lot?) of which was suspect. Seems to be the state of the art for genealogy (except, DNA studies can offer some semblance of empiricism).

      So, we can put together a reasonable story (or, many stories, depending upon several things, such as viewpoint) to use, many times. The 'brick wall' (more common than we would like) prevents this, many times, too.

      Dr. Frank did not extend his thoughts, too far, as McCracken points out. Following collateral families is one thing that might have been stressed a little more. But, given the amount of work that Dr. Frank had to do (and what has been done in the 100 years since his work?), his reports are (almost) seminal (hence, thought to be a basis).

      'too far' subsumes all of those types of traditions that we see that don't pan out (and using Margaret is not within this category), many times. In a sense, it's a matter of 'extrapolating' way beyond what the data might suggest that is the problem (and, we see it all the time -- even in the 21st century).

      Our hope is to have a firm structure with regard to Thomas and Margaret and their offspring. However, looking back to their ancestry is another undone task (why? is my main question -- brick walls?, no interest? ...). Some families have made great strides using modern tools (DNA, ...). I haven't run across this yet for Gardners. Please advise me if there is such being done.