Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Charlene Pinkowski wrote:
>
> George
>
> <> Also, the Calverts who settled in Cortland
> County, New York were from Northern Ireland and
> are suspected to be kinfolk of the Quaker
> Calverts. We have two more study group members
> from this Courtland County line.<>
>
> Firstly, I would like to quote from John Betts Calverts book The Genealogy
> of the Calvert Family published 1915, as follows:
>
> The Calverts of Armagh, County of Armagh, Province of Ulster, Ireland are
> descendants of Rev. Henry Calvert, a Presbyterian minister who migrated from
> Yorkshire, England, or from over the border in Scotland, in 1623, and
> settled in County Down. One authority says he migrated from Scotland. He was
> probably English with an infusion of Scottish blood. He married a Miss Blair
> of Scotland, whose brother was a Presbyterian clergyman, at Bangor, County
> Down. He refused to conform to Episcopacy and was put out of his church in
> 1636. Under James I., and later under Charles II, because of a strong policy
> of religious repression, Ulster received large immigrations of Scottish and
> English settlers, as America in more recent years received a large influx
> from Ireland.
>
> The Calverts who migrated from Yorkshire to Armagh and later to American
> and the Lord Baltimore Calverts were presumably of the same stock. There is
> a tradition among the Calverts of Cortland, New York, that the families
> sustained friendly relationship and exchanged visits in the mother country.
> The Calverts now living in Armgah and Dublin are children of John Calvert,
> who died in Armagh, November 19, 1873, lineal descendents of the Calverts of
> Yorkshire.
>
> John Calvert, the head of the Cortland, New York, branch of the Calvert
> family, came to America from Armagh in 1792. His wife having previously died
> he brought with him his seven children, six sonsJohn, Nathaniel, William,
> Robert, Alexander and Thomasand one daughterMargaret. After their arrival,
> the family remained in New York City for a few years. The father was a
> Scotch Covenanter of extreme type, and in order to be in close proximity to
> the Scotch Covenanter and Presbyterian colonies, in Galway, and other towns,
> of Saratoga and Washington counties, he sailed up the Hudson with his family
> and located on a farm in Saratoga county.
>
> Point 1. It was not until posting information on the Cortland county, New
> York, web page that suspicions of relationship of the Cortland county
> Calverts to the Quaker Calverts arose, and those suspicions arose within
> this list, not from without the list. There is no grounding other than
> geographical location, a hundred or more years apart for that speculation.
>
> Point 2. There was an apparent influx of emigrants from England and Scotland
> due to religious repression by the English. Therefore, without solid
> evidence, no relationships can be claimed, particularly ones that are more
> than 100 years apart in time.
>
> Point 3. There is no evidence presented whatsoever for a relationship
> between the Quaker sects and Presbyterian sects. These people seemed to have
> been very strongly adherent to their own tenets and not bouncing back and
> forth. They underwent severe repression for their beliefs and hung on to
> them to the death. It is a mistake to make an assumption of relationship
> without some evidence.
>
> Point 4. Even the statements within the body of text quoted from John Betts
> Calverts book do not have references accompanying them. All of these
> speculations must be thoroughly investigated before claims can be made. It
> is a propensity for persons not well grounded in scientific research and
> documentation, to take what is a working theory and propose it as fact.
>
> Point 5. Family lore is well noted to be erroneous, but having a kernal of
> truth. Without actual letters or diaries or some other proof that a
> relationship existed with the mother country, family tradition is only
> tradition and subject to error. In addition, it is not clear from the
> reading which mother country is being referred to, England, or Ireland, or
> Scotland for that matter.
>
> Point 6. The year of emigration of John Calvert may be called into question,
> as also who came into this country with him. Thomas does not show up in any
> Cortland county records until his daughter marries, and that is 1811. He is
> not listed as an heir when the property of John Calvert was divided (1810).
> He may indeed be a son, but more proof is needed. It is possible that he
> came in after his father bringing a wife with him, having been previously
> married. He is older than the other sons of John Calvert, and bearing the
> name of Thomas puts to lie the theory that the eldest son was named for the
> father. The eldest son that is a proven son is indeed, John Calvert. This
> also casts doubt on Thomas being a son. But, there is not proof either way.
> Further, in the U. S. Census for 1790 in Saratoga, New York there is a John
> Calvert. Who is this? Alexander Calvert, one of the proven sons of John
> Calvert, applied for naturalization and states only that he was in this
> country prior to 1795. That is understandable as he was the youngest son,
> and a small boy when John Calvert emigrated.
>
> I take exception to statements being made about these Calverts without a
> shred of evidence to back up the speculations. There is entirely too much
> carelessness in performing genealogical research in general. It is an
> unfortunate fact of life that once something is in print, it tends to be
> promulgated without question, as being truth and it takes considerably
> more effort to put down untruths that are fostered this way, than to just
> refrain from making bold statements to begin with.
>
> I strongly suggest that such statements cease to be made without having the
> data to back up the idea being put forth.
>
> Dr. Charlene Calvert Pinkowski
> charpink(a)gte.net
>
> ==== CALVERT Mailing List ====
> No copyrighted materials are permitted on this list unless by the copyright
> owner themselves.
I very much agree with Dr. Pinkowski. It only muddies the water for the
rest of us when "theories" have not been proven out.
dford(a)cybertron.com
I realize that we are all guilty of making educated guesses which we
then go look up. However when ever George makes one he tells us then it
is up to us to prove or disprove it. I welcome an educated guess over a
blank wall any day and I for one hope he keeps making them. Thank you
for your effort on my behalf George.
Charlene I realize we all at time get frustrated, just prove the
person's research incorrect don't back bite.
Louise you do a great job keep up the work.
Maryalice Convers
convers(a)epix.net
George, I find the Hollingsworth intermarriage interesting. My Calvert line
merges w/ my Scoles line (also from northern Ireland) & the Hollingsworths
are collateral to them in OH. If anyone is interested in this info let me
know & I'll post it here. Thanks, Cindy
-----Original Message-----
From: cybercat(a)ntr.net <cybercat(a)ntr.net>
To: the2jrs(a)webworks2000.net <the2jrs(a)webworks2000.net>
Cc: CALVERT-L(a)rootsweb.com <CALVERT-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 11:38 PM
Subject: [CALVERT-L] Pennsylavania Calverts
>
> 2. Ann Calvert (c. Nov 1650, Killwarlin, near
> Hillsborough, County Down - Oct 16, 1697,
> Delaware. m. June 12, 1672, Valentine
> Hollingsworth (c. Aug 1632 - 1710/11, Delaware).
>
> 3. Margaret Calvert (June 4, 1661, at
> Killurigan, Parish of Sego, County Armagh - Oct
> 1687) m. 1684, Thomas Hollingsworth (May 1, 1661
> Ireland - Feb 2, 1727), son of Valentine
> Hollinsgworth and his first wife Ann Rea.
Charlene: It seems obvious that you have done a lot of research on this
particular John Calvert, but I see no need to chastise the other
researchers on this Calvert List for their own beliefs through their own
research. George, in particular, seems always to qualify his research in
the most scholarly way as do most of the others. Everyone is searching,
exchanging ideas, suggesting possible links so that others may help. You
yourself may help those searching this line, by your own information,
but to give such a scathing lecture to these other researchers, seems
way out of line to me, this humble researcher who has been doing this
study for 14 years.
Your comment that "you strongly urge that these statements cease to be
made, etc. etc." is way out of line here, where so many of these people
are so careful in their information and always searching for proof of
links they suspect. Most qualify their statements with the added remarks
that no positive proof of a link can be made, and who are you to tell
them what they can or cannot write to this List.
Where would we be if these others did not share everything they know or
think, so that the rest can at least think about it & try to find
evidence to support thoughts and ideas. You yourself, wrote: "data to
back up the idea being put forth." The very word 'idea' means an opinion
or belief, not a proven fact. I may be wrong but I do not remember
seeing your name on the list before. I like to see new people offer to
share what they have found, and encourage you to continue, but please
don't blast these people. You spoke very bluntly, and I hope my words
are 'softer', but I took exception to the last part of your message. I
hope to see more of your research material on these particular Calverts.
If you take exception to what I have written here, feel free to write to
me as I have expressed my opinion only, not those of this list.
Louise Shaw
Charlene Pinkowski wrote:
>
> George
>
> I take exception to statements being made about these Calverts without a
> shred of evidence to back up the speculations. There is entirely too much
> carelessness in performing genealogical research in general. It is an
> unfortunate fact of life that once something is in print, it tends to be
> promulgated without question, as being truth and it takes considerably
> more effort to put down untruths that are fostered this way, than to just
> refrain from making bold statements to begin with.
>
> I strongly suggest that such statements cease to be made without having the
> data to back up the idea being put forth.
>
> Dr. Charlene Calvert Pinkowski
> charpink(a)gte.net
>
> ==== CALVERT Mailing List ====
> No copyrighted materials are permitted on this list unless by the copyright
> owner themselves.
--
Louise
Visit my Web site at: http://www.pcisys.net/~lshaw2/index.html
lshaw2(a)pcisys.net
Charlene....
Gee, if it were NOT for the "hunches and ideas" of others on this list,
specifically, George Calvert, Vicki Kay Calvert Spencer & Barbara Calvert, I
wouldn't have found out that I a descendant of the 5th Lord Baltimore (
CHARLES CALVERT, 5th Lord Baltimore b: Sep-29-1699 d: Apr-24-1751). And,
according to George, I am the ONLY one found thus far and I can't wait to find
another Calvert cuzzie down this line!
Maybe other's will have the info I need to find these links down Charles
Baltimore's line!
So, I, for one, would LOVE to see any shred of info or any ideas that anyone
has, whether documented or not, to help us all find out the real truth ! Many
of my cuzzies on the web listed my George Calvert in their databases & on
their websites as a "possible father" of my ANNE CALVERT in hopes of someone
finding out the truth. Now, it HAS been documented & it IS FACT ! And
currently, I am trying very diligently to find all the descendants of my
George Calvert (b. 1768 d. 1838 in MD) in order to update our family line in a
new book version. Since this is a newfound line, I think many others will be
quite interested in this new discovery. Why even the Mayor of Riversdale was
facinated, as was the author of the very book that I found my info in !
But, since I've been on this list, no one has come down so HARD on any
researchers like this before, at least none that I have seen... We all seem to
"help" eachother very nicely!
So, if u'd like our "ideas", please ask... We ALL try to help any Calvert
researcher, to the best of our ability, even IF it's only with ideas....
Have a great day, Doc ! :-)
Laurie Ann (Kozelka) Bieber
Sarasota, FL
In a message dated 98-04-01 14:05:58 EST, you write:
<< Charlene: It seems obvious that you have done a lot of research on this
particular John Calvert, but I see no need to chastise the other
researchers on this Calvert List for their own beliefs through their own
research. George, in particular, seems always to qualify his research in
the most scholarly way as do most of the others. Everyone is searching,
exchanging ideas, suggesting possible links so that others may help. You
yourself may help those searching this line, by your own information,
but to give such a scathing lecture to these other researchers, seems
way out of line to me, this humble researcher who has been doing this
study for 14 years.
Your comment that "you strongly urge that these statements cease to be
made, etc. etc." is way out of line here, where so many of these people
are so careful in their information and always searching for proof of
links they suspect. Most qualify their statements with the added remarks
that no positive proof of a link can be made, and who are you to tell
them what they can or cannot write to this List.
Where would we be if these others did not share everything they know or
think, so that the rest can at least think about it & try to find
evidence to support thoughts and ideas. You yourself, wrote: "data to
back up the idea being put forth." The very word 'idea' means an opinion
or belief, not a proven fact. I may be wrong but I do not remember
seeing your name on the list before. I like to see new people offer to
share what they have found, and encourage you to continue, but please
don't blast these people. You spoke very bluntly, and I hope my words
are 'softer', but I took exception to the last part of your message. I
hope to see more of your research material on these particular Calverts.
If you take exception to what I have written here, feel free to write to
me as I have expressed my opinion only, not those of this list.
Louise Shaw
Charlene Pinkowski wrote:
>
> George
>
> I take exception to statements being made about these Calverts without a
> shred of evidence to back up the speculations. There is entirely too much
> carelessness in performing genealogical research in general. It is an
> unfortunate fact of life that once something is in print, it tends to be
> promulgated without question, as being �truth� and it takes considerably
> more effort to put down untruths that are fostered this way, than to just
> refrain from making bold statements to begin with.
>
> I strongly suggest that such statements cease to be made without having the
> data to back up the idea being put forth.
>
> Dr. Charlene Calvert Pinkowski
> charpink(a)gte.net
> >>
George
<> Also, the Calverts who settled in Cortland
County, New York were from Northern Ireland and
are suspected to be kinfolk of the Quaker
Calverts. We have two more study group members
from this Courtland County line.<>
Firstly, I would like to quote from John Betts Calverts book The Genealogy
of the Calvert Family published 1915, as follows:
The Calverts of Armagh, County of Armagh, Province of Ulster, Ireland are
descendants of Rev. Henry Calvert, a Presbyterian minister who migrated from
Yorkshire, England, or from over the border in Scotland, in 1623, and
settled in County Down. One authority says he migrated from Scotland. He was
probably English with an infusion of Scottish blood. He married a Miss Blair
of Scotland, whose brother was a Presbyterian clergyman, at Bangor, County
Down. He refused to conform to Episcopacy and was put out of his church in
1636. Under James I., and later under Charles II, because of a strong policy
of religious repression, Ulster received large immigrations of Scottish and
English settlers, as America in more recent years received a large influx
from Ireland.
The Calverts who migrated from Yorkshire to Armagh and later to American
and the Lord Baltimore Calverts were presumably of the same stock. There is
a tradition among the Calverts of Cortland, New York, that the families
sustained friendly relationship and exchanged visits in the mother country.
The Calverts now living in Armgah and Dublin are children of John Calvert,
who died in Armagh, November 19, 1873, lineal descendents of the Calverts of
Yorkshire.
John Calvert, the head of the Cortland, New York, branch of the Calvert
family, came to America from Armagh in 1792. His wife having previously died
he brought with him his seven children, six sonsJohn, Nathaniel, William,
Robert, Alexander and Thomasand one daughterMargaret. After their arrival,
the family remained in New York City for a few years. The father was a
Scotch Covenanter of extreme type, and in order to be in close proximity to
the Scotch Covenanter and Presbyterian colonies, in Galway, and other towns,
of Saratoga and Washington counties, he sailed up the Hudson with his family
and located on a farm in Saratoga county.
Point 1. It was not until posting information on the Cortland county, New
York, web page that suspicions of relationship of the Cortland county
Calverts to the Quaker Calverts arose, and those suspicions arose within
this list, not from without the list. There is no grounding other than
geographical location, a hundred or more years apart for that speculation.
Point 2. There was an apparent influx of emigrants from England and Scotland
due to religious repression by the English. Therefore, without solid
evidence, no relationships can be claimed, particularly ones that are more
than 100 years apart in time.
Point 3. There is no evidence presented whatsoever for a relationship
between the Quaker sects and Presbyterian sects. These people seemed to have
been very strongly adherent to their own tenets and not bouncing back and
forth. They underwent severe repression for their beliefs and hung on to
them to the death. It is a mistake to make an assumption of relationship
without some evidence.
Point 4. Even the statements within the body of text quoted from John Betts
Calverts book do not have references accompanying them. All of these
speculations must be thoroughly investigated before claims can be made. It
is a propensity for persons not well grounded in scientific research and
documentation, to take what is a working theory and propose it as fact.
Point 5. Family lore is well noted to be erroneous, but having a kernal of
truth. Without actual letters or diaries or some other proof that a
relationship existed with the mother country, family tradition is only
tradition and subject to error. In addition, it is not clear from the
reading which mother country is being referred to, England, or Ireland, or
Scotland for that matter.
Point 6. The year of emigration of John Calvert may be called into question,
as also who came into this country with him. Thomas does not show up in any
Cortland county records until his daughter marries, and that is 1811. He is
not listed as an heir when the property of John Calvert was divided (1810).
He may indeed be a son, but more proof is needed. It is possible that he
came in after his father bringing a wife with him, having been previously
married. He is older than the other sons of John Calvert, and bearing the
name of Thomas puts to lie the theory that the eldest son was named for the
father. The eldest son that is a proven son is indeed, John Calvert. This
also casts doubt on Thomas being a son. But, there is not proof either way.
Further, in the U. S. Census for 1790 in Saratoga, New York there is a John
Calvert. Who is this? Alexander Calvert, one of the proven sons of John
Calvert, applied for naturalization and states only that he was in this
country prior to 1795. That is understandable as he was the youngest son,
and a small boy when John Calvert emigrated.
I take exception to statements being made about these Calverts without a
shred of evidence to back up the speculations. There is entirely too much
carelessness in performing genealogical research in general. It is an
unfortunate fact of life that once something is in print, it tends to be
promulgated without question, as being truth and it takes considerably
more effort to put down untruths that are fostered this way, than to just
refrain from making bold statements to begin with.
I strongly suggest that such statements cease to be made without having the
data to back up the idea being put forth.
Dr. Charlene Calvert Pinkowski
charpink(a)gte.net