Donald R. Newcomb's Genealogical Database.

Version 14.2. Primary topics are Newcomb, Childerston, Romann, McFaull, Sabarte and Lecuona surnames. This is a work in progress. I've been working hard to document my work and remove undocumented lines. Please DON'T contact me about errors before 1500. I know there are many errors. On the other hand, if you find yourself in here, except as a source, please contact me ASAP. I've tried to remove all living persons, except the famous ones. Information is current as of 14 Jan 2016.

When I don't know the maiden name of a married woman I often prepend an asterisk to the husband's surname (e.g. Jane *Smith). This is done to avoid confusing her with every other woman in the database with the same given name. If color coding makes it through to the website, people and lines with known issues are shown in red.

There is a bug in RootsMagic's website indexing when a name begins with a non-English character For this reason names that begin with foreign characters or symbols don't show in the index. Also, some browsers have problems displaying the name index. If you run into this problem, it's easiest to try a different browser. This site relies on JavaScript.

A note about genealogy and reality: It’s easy to get carried away with this stuff. Some people think it’s “special” to be descended from kings, queens and nobility, but in reality researching beyond a few generations is just an exercise in fiction. Why? Well, the standard of proof used in genealogy is “preponderance of the evidence”, the same as is used in civil trails. It just has to be more likely that a person is the spouse or child of another than that is not. In other words, 51% in favor beats 49% against.

Lets assume that you are 90% sure who your parents really were. (You could have been swapped at the hospital. Right? And, some folks say you look a lot like the milkman.) Maybe you are 85% sure of your parents’ parents. Beyond that, it’s very hard to have more than about 60% certainty of any given connection. So how do you figure cumulative probability? You multiply. 0.9 X 0.85 X 0.6 = .459 So, you really only have a 46% probability of being right about any given great-grandparent. Now take this out 10 generations. 0.9 X 0.85 X 0.6^8 = 0.0128 In other words about 1.3% chance of being right about anyone ten generations back. Even if you assume higher probabilities, the cumulative probabilities become very small, very quickly.

So, your chance of actually being descended from that particular bit of royalty is very low. But who really wants to be? In reality, they were just the biggest bunch of thieves, thugs and bullies around. The Idi Amins of their day (e.g. Robert The Old of Burgundy).

I know people who collect stamps. They justify their hobby by saying it is a window to history, since many of the stamps they collect were issued to commemorate specific events. Genealogy is the same; history viewed through a microscope. It’s harmless as long as you don’t take it too seriously.


Created 14 January 2016 with RootsMagic Genealogy Software