Direct and Indirect Descendants #general


trmclell@...
 

Leslie Reich wrote:

I keep seeing references to "Direct Descendants".

Can somebody inform me - and perhaps also others - what an "Indirect
Descendant is?

Leslie Reich, Salford, England

I have always used these terms in this manner:

Direct Descendants = Children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc.
A straight line down on the family tree

Indirect Descendants = Nieces, Nephews, cousins, etc.
A jog to one side on the family tree

Hope this helps,
Maurine Bothman McLellan
Stilwell, KS, USA

Searching: BOTHMAN BEJACH FLEISCHER SACHS


Judith Romney Wegner
 


I keep seeing references to "Direct Descendants".

Can somebody inform me - and perhaps also others - what an "Indirect
Descendant is?

Leslie Reich, Salford, England
Leslie's rhetorical question is well taken. Of course he is quire right:
one is either a person's direct descendant or no descendant at all. But
some people specify "direct descendant" because in common parlance the term
"ancestor" is often used loosely, to include the siblings and collaterals
of one's actual ("direct") forebear. By the same token, the term
"desendant" is sometimes loosely used to include people descended from
collaterals of the ancestor under discussion. Therefore, the term
"direct descendant" is sometimes used to emphasize a direct line .

Judith Romney Wegner


Leslie Reich <countrywide@...>
 

From: Leslie Reich
Date: 25 Jan 2001
Subject: Direct and Indirect Descendants

I keep seeing references to "Direct Descendants".

Can somebody inform me - and perhaps also others - what an "Indirect
Descendant is?

Leslie Reich, Salford, England


jhwraygen@...
 

"Indirect descendants" is a term that I believe is rarely used in the US.
"Indirect Descendants" are those found in collateral lines as opposed to
"direct descendants" found in one's direct line. These collaterals
include aunts, uncles, nephews nieces, cousins, XcousinsYtimes removed,
e.g. 1C2R, great aunts, gg uncles,etc. Collateral line relatives are
found in *compiled genealogies. Direct line relatives are found in
*pedigree and Ahnentafel charts*.

John H. Wray, PhD, CG, Tucson, AZ


MBernet@...
 

Leslie Reich >from England had asked (tongue in cheek?):

I keep seeing references to "Direct Descendants". Can somebody
inform me - and perhaps also others - what an "Indirect Descendant is?

==OK, we've had some answers to that.. Is there any term to indicate a
"direct ancestor" by which I mean an ancestor continuously in the unbroken
all-male line for men (i.e. my pgf'pgs'pgf' . . . ), and in the unbroken
all-female line for women

Michael Bernet, New York

WOLFF (Pfungstadt, Frankfurt/M, Koenigsberg, Amsterdam, N.Carolina); BERNET,
BERNERT, JONDORF(Frensdorf, Bamberg, Nurnberg); FEUCHTWANGER
(Schwabach, Hagenbach & Fuerth); KONIGSHOFER (anywhere); BERG, WOLF(F),
(Demmelsdorf & Zeckendorf); Shim`on GUTENSTEIN (Bad Homburg ca 1760);
FRENSDORF/ER (anywhere); MAINZER (Lorsch); anyone in Ermreuth or Floss;
GOLDSCHMIDT (B. Homburg, Hessdorf). ALTMANN (Silesia); TIMMENDORFER


Kirsten Gradel <kmgradel@...>
 

However, for the "unbroken all-male line" there is a problem, because
ultimately men must take everything on trust. How can we ever be certain
that a specified individual's reputed/reported father was in fact his/her
biological father? No doubt it is true in the majority of cases, but --
let's face it -- it is highly unlikely to be true in all cases -- and how
can we know when it is not?

I suppose we just have to take it for granted because our genealogical
researches make no biological sense without this assumption. Am I the only
cynic around, or has this problem bothered other jgenners too?

Judith Romney Wegner
I am also a cynic and have therefore always wondered why the prestigious
Cohen and Levi lineage passes along the all-male line - while the
question of being Jewish or not is decided by the all-female line. Have I
misunderstood something.

Kirsten Gradel, Denmark

MODERATOR NOTE: Discussions of religious law should
take place privately.


Judith Romney Wegner
 

==OK, we've had some answers to that.. Is there any term to indicate a
"direct ancestor" by which I mean an ancestor continuously in the unbroken
all-male line for men (i.e. my pgf'pgs'pgf' . . . ), and in the unbroken
all-female line for women

Michael Bernet, New York
I would point out that of the two, the "unbroken all-female line" is far
more reliable, because (barring adoptions) we just about always know
which woman gave birth to a specific child.

However, for the "unbroken all-male line" there is a problem, because
ultimately men must take everything on trust. How can we ever be certain
that a specified individual's reputed/reported father was in fact his/her
biological father? No doubt it is true in the majority of cases, but --
let's face it -- it is highly unlikely to be true in all cases -- and how
can we know when it is not?

I suppose we just have to take it for granted because our genealogical
researches make no biological sense without this assumption. Am I the only
cynic around, or has this problem bothered other jgenners too?

Judith Romney Wegner


Judith Romney Wegner
 


It is said that 'Jewishness' passes on the female line because: 1. we
know who our Mother is almost always and 2. Mother is who brings up
baby, mostly also 3. in case of pogrom (or whatever), if Mother gets
pregnant the baby is acceptable.

Sally Bruckheimer
Buffalo, NY
This matter has been aired on Jewishgen more than once before. May I point
out once again that the notion that the materilineal principle came into
Judaism because of rapes and pogroms is purely and simply a bube-mayse!
The rule goes back long before there were any pogroms -- even long before
the crusades, during which carnage of a kind similar to the much-later
pogroms did occur). However, it does not go back to biblical times as is
often claimed.

The matrilineal principle stems >from what a historical misinterpretation of
the mishnaic rule at M. Qiddushin 3:12. I have explained more than once
on this list the historical development of this principle -- which to many
people's surprise is not found in the Bible, the Israelites having been
just as patriarchal and patrilineal as anybody else back then. Bottom
line: it came in some centuries after the Bible, but many centuries
before the period of the pogroms!

Judith Romney Wegner.

MODERATOR NOTE: For more information, contact Ms. Wegner directly.


MBernet@...
 

In a message dated 1/28/01 8:00:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kmgradel@... writes:

<< I am also a cynic and have therefore always wondered why the prestigious
Cohen and Levi lineage passes along the all-male line - while the
question of being Jewish or not is decided by the all-female line. Have I
misunderstood something. >>

It's not a matter of religion, but of commonsense. Jews are aware
that their women have often been raped by non-Jews. It would be
diastrous to victimize a woman and her child and further offspring by
declaring them "mamzerim." Unless it is public knowledge that the
child is the product of a wilful illicit conduct by the mother (willing
adultery) the child is assumerd to be the child of the wife's husband at
the time it was conceived. As best I know, British and American law have
more or less the same provision: a father cannot call his wife's child a
bastard except under special conditions.

That Jewish parentage depends on the mother may be seen as a parallel and
extension. The mother's Jewishness is (almost certainly) not in question.
Therefore it is the mother who passes on the status of being Jewish to her
infant, at birth, even if her husband is not Jewish.

Only a male can be a Cohen or a Levi and perform the historical services
demanded >from each. The line cannot be passed on through a female. The
fatherhood, as above, is not called into question, and even if it is not
genetically the father's child, he would presumably instruct and induct
the child into his ancestral status and duties. A stepson or adopted son,
however, does not acquire his new father's cohen/levi status.

Michael Bernet, New York

WOLFF (Pfungstadt, Frankfurt/M, Koenigsberg, Amsterdam, N.Carolina); BERNET,
BERNERT, JONDORF(Frensdorf, Bamberg, Nurnberg); FEUCHTWANGER
(Schwabach, Hagenbach & Fuerth); KONIGSHOFER (anywhere); BERG, WOLF(F),
(Demmelsdorf & Zeckendorf); Shim`on GUTENSTEIN (Bad Homburg ca 1760);
FRENSDORF/ER (anywhere); MAINZER (Lorsch); anyone in Ermreuth or Floss;
GOLDSCHMIDT (B. Homburg, Hessdorf). ALTMANN (Silesia); TIMMENDORFER


Roberta Sheps <roberta_l_sheps@...>
 

Judith Romney Wegneris not being cynical when she asks whether we can
trust the accuracy of the male line. I recently heard a discussion on a
very respectable BBC Radio 4 programme (I believe it was "Woman's Hour")
prompted by recent research that indicates that 20% of children in the
US are not the biological child of the person they call "father" and
that a lot of their presumed fathers are ignorant of the fact. The
program was concerned with the questions of trust within families and
financial support by a man who may be being duped.

As an aside, the programme presenter mentioned the rather interesting
historical fact that, in order to prevent the expense to the state
and/or the disruption to family life of illegitimate children who were
the result of the uncontrolled sexual activities of his invading armies,
Napoleon passed a law that "the husband of the woman shall be the father
of the child". No mention of what happened to the children of unmarried
women.

Napoleon aside, there are a lot of red-headed Jews about. I mentioned
inter-marriage to my mother once. Her response was : (sputter)
Intermarriage? No there wasn't any intermarriage. There was rape."

I just think that as genealogists we can't let the existence of the odd
cuckoo in the nest bother us too much.
And, >from the point of view of genealogy and family history, unless what
you're interested in is bloodlines, (or more seriously, genetically
transmitted diseases) it isn't too much different >from adoption. Is
it?

Roberta Sheps
Colchester, England

Judith Romney Wegner wrote:

(barring adoptions) we just about always know
which woman gave birth to a specific child.

However, for the "unbroken all-male line" there is a
problem, because ultimately men must take everything
on trust. How can we ever be certain that a specified
individual's reputed/reported father was in fact his/her
biological father? No doubt it is true in the
majority of cases, but -- let's face it -- it is highly
unlikely to be true in all cases -- and how can we know
when it is not?

I suppose we just have to take it for granted because
our genealogical researches make no biological sense
without this assumption. Am I the only cynic around,
or has this problem bothered other jgenners too?


Sally Bruckheimer <sallybru@...>
 

I am also a cynic. When I read Michael Burnett's question, at first I
wondered why he would want to dissect out those 2 types of ancestors,
until I realized that he was thinking of these traditional criteria.

It is said that 'Jewishness' passes on the female line because: 1. we
know who our Mother is almost always and 2. Mother is who brings up
baby, mostly also 3. in case of pogrom (or whatever), if Mother gets
pregnant the baby is acceptable.

Sally Bruckheimer
Buffalo, NY