Ancestors of American Presidents, 2009 Edition

Gary Boyd Roberts is well-known for his tracing of family trees of politicians, movie stars and other notables. Now he has updated his previous work, Ancestors of American Presidents. The following is from the announcement:

More than thirty years in the making, this authoritative work presents ancestor tables for each president from George Washington to Barack Obama. Building on the comprehensive research conducted for the previous edition, New England Historic Genealogical Society Research Scholar Emeritus Gary Boyd Roberts has exhaustively investigated the most reliable genealogical sources of presidential ancestry. The book includes:

• Ancestor tables for all presidents
• Royal descents of each president and first lady
• More than 150 charts outlining kinships between presidents
• Charts showing kin and “kin of kin” to Pocahontas, presidential Mayflower lines, and connections to European royal families
• Comprehensive name and place indexes

6 x 9 hardcover, 864 pages, $34.95 ($39.95 after June 1, 2009)

Praise for the first edition:

“This impressive work incorporates all the published scholarship to date on presidential ancestry. . . . Highly recommended.” –The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record

“This book should be a staple in the library of every serious genealogist.” – North Carolina Genealogical Society Journal

To order, email sales@nehgs.org, call 617-226-1212, or visit www.NewEnglandAncestors.org.

Comments

[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