RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Total: 5/5
    1. Re: [PEARSON-UK] Yorkshire Pearsons from 1500s and before?
    2. Chris Dickinson
    3. Mike     One of the authors of this book wrote about it on this list:   http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/PIERSON/1997-07/0867987231   http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/PIERSON/1997-07/0868125100     Whether the research is reliable or not, I can't judge because I haven't read the book.     I haven't researched Pearsons in Yorkshire, but have some Pearson families in Cumberland, as well as many other families. My comments would be that:   (1)  Pearson is a patronymic surname. In other words, it is based on the construction 'son of ...', in this case 'son of Piers [Peter]'.  Such names are particularly common in the north and east of England. See, for instance, http://www.geni.com/surnames/pearson; (2)  because the surname derives from a common forename [and don't let anyone tell you differently - there was a fashion a century or more ago for inventing romantic (and absurd) origins for patronymics], modern-day Pearsons will belong to a large number of different families with no common patrilineal ancestor; (3)  you will tend to find patronymic names cluster c1600. In other words you find them in, say, two or three contiguous parishes, and then not at all in any surrounding ones. In such cases, it might be reasonable to imagine a common patrilineal ancestor, but surviving sources are unlikely to prove such; (4)  a surname shouldn't be confused with a descriptive name. A descriptive name, before surnames developed, might be something like John the Carpenter, but his son might have been John the Tailor. Only later does this develop into an inherited surname John Taylor, smith. You mustn't look at an 11th century record, see something that looks like 'pearson' and imagine that it has any connection with a c1500 surname. That's dangerous even with a noble name eg  c1100 John [lord] of Radley may not be of the same family as c1500 John Radley, lord of Radley, but at least there's a chance of enough documentation to prove it one way or the other; (5)  you are generally unlikely with a patronymic surname to trace it back pre-1500, very unlikely pre-1400. There aren't regular sources (like parish BMD) that go back that far, but there are irregular sources (such as a disputed property case retained in Chancery records) that might list a lineage (John Pearson, son of Peter, son of Peter), as well as tax and land ownership records; (6)  before you attempt to research English records, be very certain that your immigrant information is accurate. There is nothing worse that doing a vast amount of work, only to discover after five years that you are researching the wrong family!; (7) seventeenth century records were fairly extensive, so confirming your immigrant ancestor may be fairly easy (as the connection has alrady been researched). You would need to look at the local parish register/BT and at available probate (both of which likely to be available for order on film at your local LDS FHC, and increasingly from online sources). As your ancestor is meant to have left for the colonies in 1637, it might also be worth finding out whether there was a Protestation Return for the parish some four years later to see what Pearsons were left behind; (8) how far back you can go in the sixteenth century will depend largely upon the existence of parish BMD. If you are lucky, they will go back to 1538, if you are unlucky there won't be any.       Chris         >________________________________ > From: Michael Pearson <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012, 2:24 >Subject: Re: [PEARSON-UK] Yorkshire Pearsons from 1500s and before? > >On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Michael Pearson <[email protected] >> wrote: > >> Hello, Dear Friends on Pearson List, >> >>  I live in Washington state.  I labor and write.  I'm 55 and single. >> My Mother has been researching, mostly her side of the family, >> for 20 years. >> >>    So here's the line I'm researching.on my father's side, followed by my >> questions. >> >> >> http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=lorenfamily&id=I41924 >> >> 1)  I see that some of our information which I already have now >> may have come from _The Pierson Millenium_ which >> is available for purchase.  Would this book be likely to contain a lot >> more background >> information for this group of Pearsons in Yorkshire? >> 2)  Is any more information likely to become available about this family >> going back >> further in time? >> 3)  Do You have any ideas for learning more about life in that region >> (Yorkshire & Staffordshire), >> >including how John Pearson would be invited to sail to  Rowley, Mass., to >join a group of Nonconformists and build stuff? > >Any thoughts or conversation on this will probably interest me.  Thanks! > >Sincerely, >Mike Pearson > > > >> >> >> >> > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >

    02/17/2012 03:33:22
    1. Re: [PEARSON-UK] Yorkshire Pearson's from 1500s and before?
    2. John Philip Adams
    3. Does anyone recognize "Pearson's" from Warwick about 1500? JP Adams Texas -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Dickinson Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 4:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEARSON-UK] Yorkshire Pearson's from 1500s and before? Mike     One of the authors of this book wrote about it on this list:   http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/PIERSON/1997-07/0867987231   http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/PIERSON/1997-07/0868125100     Whether the research is reliable or not, I can't judge because I haven't read the book.     I haven't researched Pearson's in Yorkshire, but have some Pearson families in Cumberland, as well as many other families. My comments would be that:   (1)  Pearson is a patronymic surname. In other words, it is based on the construction 'son of ...', in this case 'son of Piers [Peter]'.  Such names are particularly common in the north and east of England. See, for instance, http://www.geni.com/surnames/pearson; (2)  because the surname derives from a common forename [and don't let anyone tell you differently - there was a fashion a century or more ago for inventing romantic (and absurd) origins for patronymics], modern-day Pearson's will belong to a large number of different families with no common patrilineal ancestor; (3)  you will tend to find patronymic names cluster c1600. In other words you find them in, say, two or three contiguous parishes, and then not at all in any surrounding ones. In such cases, it might be reasonable to imagine a common patrilineal ancestor, but surviving sources are unlikely to prove such; (4)  a surname shouldn't be confused with a descriptive name. A descriptive name, before surnames developed, might be something like John the Carpenter, but his son might have been John the Tailor. Only later does this develop into an inherited surname John Taylor, smith. You mustn't look at an 11th century record, see something that looks like 'pearson' and imagine that it has any connection with a c1500 surname. That's dangerous even with a noble name eg  c1100 John [lord] of Radley may not be of the same family as c1500 John Radley, lord of Radley, but at least there's a chance of enough documentation to prove it one way or the other; (5)  you are generally unlikely with a patronymic surname to trace it back pre-1500, very unlikely pre-1400. There aren't regular sources (like parish BMD) that go back that far, but there are irregular sources (such as a disputed property case retained in Chancery records) that might list a lineage (John Pearson, son of Peter, son of Peter), as well as tax and land ownership records; (6)  before you attempt to research English records, be very certain that your immigrant information is accurate. There is nothing worse that doing a vast amount of work, only to discover after five years that you are researching the wrong family!; (7) seventeenth century records were fairly extensive, so confirming your immigrant ancestor may be fairly easy (as the connection has alrady been researched). You would need to look at the local parish register/BT and at available probate (both of which likely to be available for order on film at your local LDS FHC, and increasingly from online sources). As your ancestor is meant to have left for the colonies in 1637, it might also be worth finding out whether there was a Protestation Return for the parish some four years later to see what Pearsons were left behind; (8) how far back you can go in the sixteenth century will depend largely upon the existence of parish BMD. If you are lucky, they will go back to 1538, if you are unlucky there won't be any.       Chris         >________________________________ > From: Michael Pearson <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012, 2:24 >Subject: Re: [PEARSON-UK] Yorkshire Pearsons from 1500s and before? > >On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Michael Pearson ><[email protected] >> wrote: > >> Hello, Dear Friends on Pearson List, >> >>  I live in Washington state.  I labor and write.  I'm 55 and single. >> My Mother has been researching, mostly her side of the family, for >>20 years. >> >>    So here's the line I'm researching.on my father's side, followed >>by my questions. >> >> >> http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=lorenfamily >> &id=I41924 >> >> 1)  I see that some of our information which I already have now may >> have come from _The Pierson Millenium_ which is available for >> purchase.  Would this book be likely to contain a lot more >> background information for this group of Pearsons in Yorkshire? >> 2)  Is any more information likely to become available about this >> family going back further in time? >> 3)  Do You have any ideas for learning more about life in that region >> (Yorkshire & Staffordshire), >> >including how John Pearson would be invited to sail to  Rowley, Mass., >to join a group of Nonconformists and build stuff? > >Any thoughts or conversation on this will probably interest me.  Thanks! > >Sincerely, >Mike Pearson > > > >> >> >> >> > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

    06/04/2012 04:31:53
    1. [PEARSON-UK] ROLL CALL!
    2. Jana M Black
    3. OK everyone, since we seem to have woken the skeletons of the list, let's post our info and our brick walls while the getting is good! Mary Pearson of London was my gg grandmother. She was b. abt. 1818 out of London, married William Henry Dewhurst 10 Dec 1840 at Old St. Pancras Church. All we know if her family is that her father is listed on the marriage certificate as Thomas Pearson, Shoemaker, living in Canden Town. In trolling the census and other records, tho only possible Thomas who was a Shoemaker was b. in in Whittlesey, Cambridgeshire and was married to a woman name Lydia. The reason my research has been blocked for so long is that Mary was hospitalized in an Insane Asylum abt. 1848. Mary Dewhurst nee Pearson suffered her first attack of dementia at the age of 30 which places the beginnings of her problems just before the birth of her daughter Madeline, at a time in the life of the family where there is a five year gap in births - generally unusual, but understandable here. It is not yet clear whether she was hospitalized between 1848 and 1854, but given that she was not enumerated with the family in 1851, it is possible she was institutionalized then ... Perhaps it was identified that she had problems, but she was actually not hospitalized until 1854. What we can surmise is that either she was in and out of the hospital in this time period or conjugal visits to the hospital were permitted in order for Mary to bring Madeline in 1849 and William James in 1852 into the world. After 1854, these children were raised without a mother at home. More info here: http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~jmbhome/1marypearson.htm Oboy, would I love to find someone who can "relate" to her in a family way <G> It has been a few years - let's see what the rest of you have to contribute to the collective family tree! Jana McPherson Black List Mgr. On 6/4/2012 8:31 AM, John Philip Adams wrote: > Does anyone recognize "Pearson's" from Warwick about 1500? > JP Adams > Texas > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Dickinson > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 4:33 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PEARSON-UK] Yorkshire Pearson's from 1500s and before? > > Mike > > > One of the authors of this book wrote about it on this list: > > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/PIERSON/1997-07/0867987231 > > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/PIERSON/1997-07/0868125100 > > > Whether the research is reliable or not, I can't judge because I haven't > read the book. > > > I haven't researched Pearson's in Yorkshire, but have some Pearson families > in Cumberland, as well as many other families. My comments would be that: > > (1) Pearson is a patronymic surname. In other words, it is based on the > construction 'son of ...', in this case 'son of Piers [Peter]'. Such names > are particularly common in the north and east of England. See, for instance, > http://www.geni.com/surnames/pearson; > (2) because the surname derives from a common forename [and don't let > anyone tell you differently - there was a fashion a century or more ago for > inventing romantic (and absurd) origins for patronymics], modern-day > Pearson's will belong to a large number of different families with no common > patrilineal ancestor; > (3) you will tend to find patronymic names cluster c1600. In other words > you find them in, say, two or three contiguous parishes, and then not at all > in any surrounding ones. In such cases, it might be reasonable to imagine a > common patrilineal ancestor, but surviving sources are unlikely to prove > such; > (4) a surname shouldn't be confused with a descriptive name. A descriptive > name, before surnames developed, might be something like John the Carpenter, > but his son might have been John the Tailor. Only later does this develop > into an inherited surname John Taylor, smith. You mustn't look at an 11th > century record, see something that looks like 'pearson' and imagine that it > has any connection with a c1500 surname. That's dangerous even with a noble > name eg c1100 John [lord] of Radley may not be of the same family as c1500 > John Radley, lord of Radley, but at least there's a chance of enough > documentation to prove it one way or the other; > (5) you are generally unlikely with a patronymic surname to trace it back > pre-1500, very unlikely pre-1400. There aren't regular sources (like parish > BMD) that go back that far, but there are irregular sources (such as a > disputed property case retained in Chancery records) that might list a > lineage (John Pearson, son of Peter, son of Peter), as well as tax and land > ownership records; > (6) before you attempt to research English records, be very certain that > your immigrant information is accurate. There is nothing worse that doing a > vast amount of work, only to discover after five years that you are > researching the wrong family!; > (7) seventeenth century records were fairly extensive, so confirming your > immigrant ancestor may be fairly easy (as the connection has alrady been > researched). You would need to look at the local parish register/BT and at > available probate (both of which likely to be available for order on film at > your local LDS FHC, and increasingly from online sources). As your ancestor > is meant to have left for the colonies in 1637, it might also be worth > finding out whether there was a Protestation Return for the parish some four > years later to see what Pearsons were left behind; > (8) how far back you can go in the sixteenth century will depend largely > upon the existence of parish BMD. If you are lucky, they will go back to > 1538, if you are unlucky there won't be any. > > > > Chris > > > > > > >> ________________________________ >> From: Michael Pearson<[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012, 2:24 >> Subject: Re: [PEARSON-UK] Yorkshire Pearsons from 1500s and before? >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Michael Pearson >> <[email protected] >>> wrote: >>> Hello, Dear Friends on Pearson List, >>> >>> I live in Washington state. I labor and write. I'm 55 and single. >>> My Mother has been researching, mostly her side of the family, for >>> 20 years. >>> >>> So here's the line I'm researching.on my father's side, followed >>> by my questions. >>> >>> >>> http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=lorenfamily >>> &id=I41924 >>> >>> 1) I see that some of our information which I already have now may >>> have come from _The Pierson Millenium_ which is available for >>> purchase. Would this book be likely to contain a lot more >>> background information for this group of Pearsons in Yorkshire? >>> 2) Is any more information likely to become available about this >>> family going back further in time? >>> 3) Do You have any ideas for learning more about life in that region >>> (Yorkshire& Staffordshire), >>> >> including how John Pearson would be invited to sail to Rowley, Mass., >> to join a group of Nonconformists and build stuff? >> >> Any thoughts or conversation on this will probably interest me. Thanks! >> >> Sincerely, >> Mike Pearson >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

    06/04/2012 05:22:08
    1. Re: [PEARSON-UK] Yorkshire Pearsons from 1500s and before?
    2. John Philip Adams
    3. MAYBE, Ancestry.com and other DNA analytical resources may be the best sure fired way of finding out our ancestry. I am a Pearson on Mothers side of the family, but I have her brothers male children hunted down and know where they live. (JOKE) but I can get their DNA and at least we could find out who we belong to about 1500 in Warwick, Eng. Were there any Pearson's, pro King and anti Cromwell in the 1600's? JP Adams Texas -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Dickinson Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 4:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEARSON-UK] Yorkshire Pearsons from 1500s and before? Mike     One of the authors of this book wrote about it on this list:   http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/PIERSON/1997-07/0867987231   http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/PIERSON/1997-07/0868125100     Whether the research is reliable or not, I can't judge because I haven't read the book.     I haven't researched Pearsons in Yorkshire, but have some Pearson families in Cumberland, as well as many other families. My comments would be that:   (1)  Pearson is a patronymic surname. In other words, it is based on the construction 'son of ...', in this case 'son of Piers [Peter]'.  Such names are particularly common in the north and east of England. See, for instance, http://www.geni.com/surnames/pearson; (2)  because the surname derives from a common forename [and don't let anyone tell you differently - there was a fashion a century or more ago for inventing romantic (and absurd) origins for patronymics], modern-day Pearsons will belong to a large number of different families with no common patrilineal ancestor; (3)  you will tend to find patronymic names cluster c1600. In other words you find them in, say, two or three contiguous parishes, and then not at all in any surrounding ones. In such cases, it might be reasonable to imagine a common patrilineal ancestor, but surviving sources are unlikely to prove such; (4)  a surname shouldn't be confused with a descriptive name. A descriptive name, before surnames developed, might be something like John the Carpenter, but his son might have been John the Tailor. Only later does this develop into an inherited surname John Taylor, smith. You mustn't look at an 11th century record, see something that looks like 'pearson' and imagine that it has any connection with a c1500 surname. That's dangerous even with a noble name eg  c1100 John [lord] of Radley may not be of the same family as c1500 John Radley, lord of Radley, but at least there's a chance of enough documentation to prove it one way or the other; (5)  you are generally unlikely with a patronymic surname to trace it back pre-1500, very unlikely pre-1400. There aren't regular sources (like parish BMD) that go back that far, but there are irregular sources (such as a disputed property case retained in Chancery records) that might list a lineage (John Pearson, son of Peter, son of Peter), as well as tax and land ownership records; (6)  before you attempt to research English records, be very certain that your immigrant information is accurate. There is nothing worse that doing a vast amount of work, only to discover after five years that you are researching the wrong family!; (7) seventeenth century records were fairly extensive, so confirming your immigrant ancestor may be fairly easy (as the connection has alrady been researched). You would need to look at the local parish register/BT and at available probate (both of which likely to be available for order on film at your local LDS FHC, and increasingly from online sources). As your ancestor is meant to have left for the colonies in 1637, it might also be worth finding out whether there was a Protestation Return for the parish some four years later to see what Pearsons were left behind; (8) how far back you can go in the sixteenth century will depend largely upon the existence of parish BMD. If you are lucky, they will go back to 1538, if you are unlucky there won't be any.       Chris         >________________________________ > From: Michael Pearson <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012, 2:24 >Subject: Re: [PEARSON-UK] Yorkshire Pearsons from 1500s and before? > >On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Michael Pearson ><[email protected] >> wrote: > >> Hello, Dear Friends on Pearson List, >> >>  I live in Washington state.  I labor and write.  I'm 55 and single. >> My Mother has been researching, mostly her side of the family, for >>20 years. >> >>    So here's the line I'm researching.on my father's side, followed >>by my questions. >> >> >> http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=lorenfamily >> &id=I41924 >> >> 1)  I see that some of our information which I already have now may >> have come from _The Pierson Millenium_ which is available for >> purchase.  Would this book be likely to contain a lot more >> background information for this group of Pearsons in Yorkshire? >> 2)  Is any more information likely to become available about this >> family going back further in time? >> 3)  Do You have any ideas for learning more about life in that region >> (Yorkshire & Staffordshire), >> >including how John Pearson would be invited to sail to  Rowley, Mass., >to join a group of Nonconformists and build stuff? > >Any thoughts or conversation on this will probably interest me.  Thanks! > >Sincerely, >Mike Pearson > > > >> >> >> >> > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

    06/04/2012 04:54:19
    1. [PEARSON-UK] DNA
    2. Christine Benson
    3. Hi All, I was contacted by a Pearson descendant from the USA who believes her Pearson ancestry cones from the Styal region of Cheshire. My Pearson ancestry definitely comes from that area. She has had a male cousin's DNA tested with http://www.familytreedna.com/public/pearson/ I am in the process of doing the same thing. Hoping this might be of interest to others. Christine -----Original Message----- From: John Philip Adams Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:54 PM To: 'Chris Dickinson' ; [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEARSON-UK] Yorkshire Pearsons from 1500s and before? MAYBE, Ancestry.com and other DNA analytical resources may be the best sure fired way of finding out our ancestry. I am a Pearson on Mothers side of the family, but I have her brothers male children hunted down and know where they live. (JOKE) but I can get their DNA and at least we could find out who we belong to about 1500 in Warwick, Eng. Were there any Pearson's, pro King and anti Cromwell in the 1600's? JP Adams Texas

    06/04/2012 11:18:25