Forums

Posted: 04-12-2003 13:37 Post subject: Fort's Family Tree

We have had one of his relatives stop in:

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7340

but I don't think this has come up before so....

Mr X has researched Charles Fort's family tree and added it to Ancestry.com's database here:

http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:1051694&id=I51164937

you can download the information as a GEDCOM file (I might have a little play importing into the family tree software I have).

I'm not sure if it is of any use to antone but it may be of interest Wink

[edit: The file imports fine - I've made a few tweaks as not all the info (dates of birth, etc.) seems to have gone through. Interesting series of marriages to the Van Vranken family]

Emps

Posted: 18-12-2004 13:28 Post subject: Deleted

Deleted

Posted: 18-12-2004 18:34 Post subject:

I wonder if he or his family ever realised their lineage- that they were descendents of Charlemagne and so on. I'm guessing that they might not have but imagine that, having ancestors of that pedigree.

Posted: 18-12-2004 18:40 Post subject:

I'm impressed, a lot of the time you run into an impenetrable wall around about the 15th century.

If the 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail', story is true then just think who else Charles Hoy Fort would have as an ancestor. Wink

Posted: 18-12-2004 19:51 Post subject:

Posted: 18-12-2004 20:08 Post subject:

Posted: 18-12-2004 20:14 Post subject:

Posted: 30-12-2004 10:40 Post subject: Deleted

Deleted

Posted: 30-12-2004 14:02 Post subject:

Mr. X: Nice stuff. How solid is this section?:

Posted: 30-12-2004 14:36 Post subject:

Very interesting stuff on this thread - v thought provoking.

Dawkins has often written about how you need go back a suprisingly short number of generations before you find the most recent common ancestor of yourself and pretty much anyone else you choose to mention from the same part of the world, probably no more than a few hundred years.

Most likely, everyone reading this thread will have a director ancestor that appears on Resologist's brilliantly uncovered list for Fort.

When I researched my family tree for a school project in 1989 (well, I say "I researched" - in fact I merely nicked what another relative had done years before), I found we could get back to the early 1600s on the paternal side, but we then encoutered the impenetrable wall Timble speaks of.

But if we all had access to a universal genealogical tree, we'd surely see that by the time you go back 50 generations, pretty much everyone is a cousin of everyone else. Then you have to factor in the consistent rate of false paternity, which I believe is about 4% these days (can anyone correct me here?) and was probably rather higher back then.

And I love some of the curiosities the concept of a complete family tree of all life on earth going back 4 billion years throws up. You'd have to come up with some arbitrary boundaries at which speciation occurs, meaning you will necessarily have a point at which your great (x50,000) grandmother of one genus (say, australopthicene) gives birth to your great grandmother (x49,999) of another (say, homo).

Posted: 30-12-2004 15:43 Post subject:

The further back you go the smaller the genepool you have to examine to find links. Even in 1066 the population of England was just 1,100,000 compared to now its 49,138,831.

Posted: 10-06-2006 15:10 Post subject:

I'm bumpng this thread to see if anyone has any extra informaiton.