« (+) From Lloyd's Library: What's in a Name by Lloyd Bockstruck | Main | GRHS Youth Essay Contest »

January 28, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Caroline Gurney

As a Brit, I find it ironic that, since our American cousins fought a totally justified Revolution against the British monarch, this book highlights US Presidents' descent from, and connections to, royalty.

Tom Abbott

Brits should realize that, for one thing, only 25% or so of Colonists were for the Revolution, so maybe those most interested now in royal descent have most of their ancestors among that other 75%. Maybe more important is how many Americans nowadays have strongly negative feelings towards George III? The monarch they see now is Elizabeth II. The evil royal? Almost totally defanged. Edward I, Eleanor of Provence, Wladyslaw II and the like? Exotic.
Many Americans today are more like Gary Boyd Roberts who as a teenager saw a movie with royals and was hooked. But there are still gigantic numbers of Americans who couldn't care less. Just ask some of my relatives!

Joan Griffis

If one clicks on the NEHGS website for the details on the book it is 600 pages (and not 864) and the sale ends March 31 (and not June 1). Sounds like a great book. However, I already have the previous edition so probably won't buy this one.

Caroline Gurney

Tom, thank you for that information. I had no idea that the numbers of Loyalists were that high. Personally, I have been on the side of the Revolution ever since first studying it in school as a teenager. I suspect I see the Founding Fathers in a romantic light, akin to the way some Americans view royalty.

Rob

Tom, where is your proof that "25% or so Colonists" were for the Revolution? Sure, there were Loyalists in the American colonies, yet the majority of colonists supported the Revolution for various reasons, not just for a singular reason against George III and the Redcoats.

Tom Abbott

Rob, you're right to question that "25% or so." I should have included that along with my amazement at reading that (which is why it stuck in my memory) is further recollection that there was supposedly a very rough percentage (75%?) or more of others who were "indifferent" to varying degrees. True Loyalists? More measureable. And the very rough 25 and 75% estimates obviously would've changed as the war progressed and as the Continentals won more battles. And the "25%" was maybe meant to mean the portion of the population willing to support a very risky armed resurrection as opposed to some other arrangement with the British government. There was quite a downside to declaring oneself a Patriot then. Look at the disastrous end-of-life outcomes for most of the signers of the Dec. of Independence. Good thing for us now that they did that, but I think whatever author I read who came up with that 25% estimate has a very defensible argument. Granted, I should've said "probably at the beginning of the Revolution." But still, even a "majority" is technically only 51%. Interesting topic though. I bet someone at NEHGS has the answer! Or Dick Eastman himself.

Tom Abbott

Rob, you're right to question that "25% or so." I should have included that along with my amazement at reading that (which is why it stuck in my memory) is further recollection that there was supposedly a very rough percentage (75%?) or more of others who were "indifferent" to varying degrees. True Loyalists? More measureable. And the very rough 25 and 75% estimates obviously would've changed as the war progressed and as the Continentals won more battles. And the "25%" was maybe meant to mean the portion of the population willing to support a very risky armed resurrection as opposed to some other arrangement with the British government. There was quite a downside to declaring oneself a Patriot then. Look at the disastrous end-of-life outcomes for most of the signers of the Dec. of Independence. Good thing for us now that they did that, but I think whatever author I read who came up with that 25% estimate has a very defensible argument. Granted, I should've said "probably at the beginning of the Revolution." But still, even a "majority" is technically only 51%. Interesting topic though. I bet someone at NEHGS has the answer! Or Dick Eastman himself.

Donna

I always thought the colonists basically fell into thirds: one-third favored, one-third opposed, and one-third was basically uninterested one way or the other. I think it was also regional with more support for the Revolution in the Northeast than in the deep South.

Barry Wood

I'm tired of all this Loyalist propaganda. Sure, there were a few hundred thousand of them, but they were not anywhere near the majority in any colony, even New York. If they had been, (a) the legislatures of each of the colonies would not taken the bold and dangerous step of voting for independence in the first place, and (b) the advocates of independence would not have had any chance of succeeding in the long course of the war, given that the Loyalists were supported by the might of the British Empire.

Of my known male ancestors in the generation that could have fought in the Rev. War, no fewer than eleven took up arms for the patriots, two would not fight due to conscience (Dunkard & Quaker) but supplied materiel to the cause, two more were neutral Quakers, four were older men with large families who didn't fight but appear to have sympathized with the revolutionaries, one left no indication of his leanings, one may have been a quiet Tory (because a son went to Canada during the war), and only 1 (ONE) was openly and actively loyalist. In this admittedly not sample (though it does include men from Vermont to North Carolina), that's seventeen rebels, three neutrals or presumed neutral, and only two possible or confirmed Loyalists.

The notion that as many colonists favored the Crown as favored independence is pure bunk.

Barry Wood

I should add that the royal ancestry issue is irrelevant. My two New England lines with royal connections (through Olive Welby, wife of Henry Farwell, and Richard More) were just as fiercely pro-independence as any of the others. Of course, in my view it's very unlikely that the descendants who were alive as of the 1770's had any knowledge of their royal blood.

Tom Abbott

It's ironic that this neat discussion has gotten so far afield from Caroline Gurney's one-sentence comment about present-day Americans' interest in royal ancestry. (And I never even mentioned Loyalists.) I too have 10 or more great (4X) grandfathers who fought in varying ways with either militias or the Continentals. I have another who fought with Washington as a British officer in "Braddock's Defeat" against the French and Indians but seemingly sat out the Rev War in N.H. But I bet at the end of the war everyone was pretty happy with the result. I agree in that probably none of my "gateway" ancestors in the 1770s had any idea of their tiny royal connections. And if they had, it probably would've been described with colorful language! But these days--feeling towards royalty in this country are so neutered, and fascination with historical figures in the Middle and Dark Ages so strong--how is it surprising it's fun to find even a minuscule connection to those characters?

Chris Child

Joan -

The book is 864 pages and the sale price is available until May 31.

Chris

Susi Pentico

So why start with George what is wrong with admitting the first president, not the first elected president. We as genealogists have to be careful there. I personally think his book will be great but he missed with not starting with the first president. Susi

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Receive FREE daily newsletter updates by email

  • Enter your email address


    Click here to see a typical e-mail message you will receive.

    I promise that:

    1. I will never sell, rent, or give away your address to any outside party, ever;
    2. I will never send you any unrequested e-mail, besides newsletter updates; and
    3. All unsubscribe requests are honored immediately, period.

My Photo

Search This Site for Past Articles

Meet Dick Eastman in Person

November 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

Amazon Kindle

Offers

Blog powered by TypePad

Amazon Picks

Receive daily newsletter updates by email

  • Enter your Email


    Preview

    (Don't worry, I hate spam as much as you do and you will be able to UNSUBSCRIBE within seconds at any time!)