Quite a Pedigree

I still feel a little peculiar when referring to people's ancestry as pedigrees. Used in this context, the term was unknown to me until recently and still feels odd to use in this context.

Previously, I  wrote a little about the long Scottish line of my pedigree, but this post is about Sue's lineage. Lineage: I like lineage. It sounds less like I am referring to a show cat although Sue most definitely is the cat's .... ahem ... sorry. I do tend to get carried away.

Almost 20 years ago, Sue received a nineteen page, photocopy of her lineage on her dad's side, the Mortons. We were wondering where the dang thing had got to.

One recent day, we (as in Sue) decided to clean the pile of mailers that I had kept sticking between the filing cabinet and the shelving unit. Said pile was just about chest high, and one doesn't really need quite so many used mailers, as nifty as they are.

And there it was in a folder at the bottom of the overflow. Of course, unlike in the following photo, it was stuffed in sideways at the time. I repent that I did not think to take a before picture, but the mailers went up and up, beyond the level shown in the photo. The ones remaining are unused and potentially useful.

This document on the Mortons was compiled by a relative whom we have never met, P, from Alberta. It made its way to Sue in 2002. P had tracked the Morton line all of the way back to 1200 CE in Yorkshire, England, when her earliest known ancestors were called De Marton.

The de Martons seem to have been Lords of Bawtry in Yorkshire for many generations. However, they dropped the de, changed the a to an o, and became just Morton in the 6th generation, probably ~1350. The first named Morton was Sir Robert Morton, at the bottom #6 of the pedigree snapshot below. 

According to P's findings, Robert married Joan de Skinton and sired two children. Their son, Robert, continued the line all of the way down to Sue and, of course, Shauna and then Danica and Jonathan. I make it as 25 generations from William de Marton to Dani and JJ.

Given the historical period, a little over a century after the Norman conquest in 1066, the De most likely indicates French/Norman ancestry.

Strangely enough, I was once told that my surname, Rayner, also derived from a Norman (I think, knight) from Yorkshire. I have never confirmed this, but it is possible that our ancestors knew each other back then.

There are 5 more generations on page 1 as we edge toward the 1500s (repeating Robert Morton from above, #6.)

With my current Ancestry subscription, I cannot really verify these very early records. I refuse to pay an extra $12 to $15 per month for the privilege of delving into the older records and don't know if  even that would do it. What I can tell you is that up until about 1500 (which begins on the next page and which I am not bothering to post today), P's research seems to be very congruent with Ancestry information. There are dating discrepancies as we proceed into the 16th century and later, but her findings work really well overall.

I don't know how P was able to accomplish all of this remarkable research back in the days before the internet or at least before much internet. If this document was sent to us in 2002 after whatever amount of time it took to go through a few hands, it had to have been compiled mostly in the 90s. I am recalling that the internet didn't become much of a tool before about he mid-nineties, and it was still pretty rudimentary back then.

I am guessing that P was not short of funds and could travel for her research if necessary and could also afford to purchase copies of documents.

There will be more to write, but that is enough for one blog post. Stay tuned.