- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 36,371
- Location
- East of Suez
This made my head swim the first time I read it, but now I understand it, it seems remarkable:
Here's another.
This made my head swim the first time I read it, but now I understand it, it seems remarkable:
My great great great grandfather (b. 1722) | Queen Victoria (b. 1819) |
My great great grandfather (b. 1767) | King Edward VII (b. 1841) |
My great grandfather (b. 1836) | King George V (b. 1865) |
My grandfather (b. 1888) | King George VI (b. 1895) |
My mum (b. 1924) | Queen Elizabeth II (b. 1926) |
Me (b. 1964) | Prince Edward (b. 1964) |
Is that all down the same family line? In which case, did your GGGF had a son at age 69? We've had discussions elsewhere about much older men marrying younger women - I think in the context of American Civil War veterans. Was it a common occurrence in the 19th century?I may go on too much about my relatives (did I mention I was related to Aleister Crowley's wife Rose? I did? Oh.) but my great great grandfather (b. 1767) knew Robert Burns, who died in 1796. This seems quite stretched out to me, although of course not as impressively so as some of the stories above.
Just as an illustration here's the birth dates of my ancestors, with a random family chosen completely at random for comparison.
My great great great grandfather (b. 1722) Queen Victoria (b. 1819) My great great grandfather (b. 1767) King Edward VII (b. 1841) My great grandfather (b. 1836) King George V (b. 1865) My grandfather (b. 1888) King George VI (b. 1895) My mum (b. 1924) Queen Elizabeth II (b. 1926) Me (b. 1964) Prince Edward (b. 1964)
Yes, it's a direct line of descent.Is that all down the same family line?
He did indeed, the old goat. He got married the first time in 1791 and they had a daughter in 1792 when he would have been a moderate 25ish. He was widowed in 1823 and remarried about 1826 or 1827, so he must have been around 60. My great grandfather was born in 1836.In which case, did your GGGF had a son at age 69?
Good question. I think it may have been more common then than now. It seems to me that the plots of some well-known 19th century novels feature the marriage of a young woman to an older man (e.g. Jane Eyre, Emma, Little Women, Bleak House) and one is tempted to think of the much more pressing need to get married in order to secure some sort of economic stability making women in those days a lot less fussy about husbands. (And very likely having ageing husbands foisted on them by impecunious parents, as per certain of those 19th century novels!)Was it a common occurrence in the 19th century?
It's hardly relevant, but the old guy had very definite tastes in names. Both his wives were called Margaret. He was Archibald. His first son by his second wife was called Archibald, and they called their daughter Margaret. Archibald jr died in childhood, so they had another son and called him Archibald. To me it displays a distinct lack of imagination.
As soon as I read that, I thought of Sir Ambrose Ambercrombie from The Loved One. I checked out the IMDB, and discovered that, yes indeed, he was "the inspiration for the character Sir Ambrose Abercrombie in Evelyn Waugh's satire of Hollywood "The Loved One."According to Wikipedia [C Aubrey Smith] was also the partriarch of the British acting enclave in Hollywood at the time - the David Nivens and Ronald Colemans et al.
I just re-read "The Loved One." It's a very sour novel.As soon as I read that, I thought of Sir Ambrose Ambercrombie from The Loved One. I checked out the IMDB, and discovered that, yes indeed, he was "the inspiration for the character Sir Ambrose Abercrombie in Evelyn Waugh's satire of Hollywood "The Loved One."
That's an amazing record of Paris - strange to see the Eiffel Tower in that state. My GG and his family would have been there at the time and the colourisation and speed adjustment of the film makes them seem within touching distanceI was looking at old restored films recently and thought these two would fit this thread - Paris 1890's -And Paris in 1927 -30 years time span so some of the same people might even be in both films - but two very different era's - epsecially noticeable is the change from horse drawn to motorised transport.
By contrast if you were to have filmed outside my flat in Glasgow in 1990 and then again today you would be hard pushed to spot any major change.