The document referred to in your link is "Welsh Historical Statistics",
originally compiled by J. Williams, the same as that in the link in my
e-mail yesterday, though no registration is required to access the data in
that source. So the original source is the same - John Rickman and his
Parish Register Abstracts.
I will go away and think about the Cardiganshire population problem when I
feel like a challenge!
On 30 May 2017 at 17:19, RHODRI DAFIS <rhodridafis(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I readily admit my figures for Cardigan are Estimates.
Somewhere I read either in Ceredigion or one of the Volumes on
Cardiganshire History, that from memory, , an analysis of the 1841 Census
showed that about 40% were under 10, another 10% were under 20, and only
about 12.5% of the population was over 50.
That suggests a rapid growth in the population in the preceding say 25
I am happy to be proved wrong.
You and Brian may be interested in the following link.
You have to register, and then you can download reports and statistics.
I have looked at this particular report, but have looked at various others
in the past.
It gives a list of sources from which the data is derived and is probably
the source John Davies used in his History of Wales.
On 29 May 2017 at 12:09, Anna Brueton <annabrueton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> In my experience the Cambridge Group have shown little interest in
> population studies in Wales (academic gossip attributes this to a falling
> out between them and some Welsh academics). I can't find a source for John
> Davies' figures, but they are consistent with those calculated by John
> Rickman, who carried out the first British census. You can find these here:
> These estimates have been criticised, particularly at the county-level,
> but as far as I know, no-one has come up with anything better!
> Rhodri, your county figures look a bit low in respect of Cardiganshire.
> The Census count in 1801 was 42,956.
> On 29 May 2017 at 11:11, Brian Swann <bps(a)norvic8.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>> Dear Rhodri, All
>> Let me say a few words about the subject of acceptable genealogical
>> standards of proof and a few other things. In many ways our colleagues
>> across the Pond have put more emphasis on this subject than we ever have.
>> This is quite a good enunciation of the principles of genealogical proof,
>> whilst not getting into the documentary specifics of each region of the
>> British Isles. The Board for Certification of Genealogists in America
>> is an official body, and as such can certify and award accreditation to
>> practising genealogists. I usually regard Cokayne's The Complete
>> Peerage as
>> pretty good, as it has an abundance of references to the conclusions
>> With Burke and Debrett, it depends on when the volumes were compiled -
>> and a
>> now-forgotten genealogist, called John Horace Round, took great delight
>> debunking them around the turn of the 20th century. Later volumes are
>> They even have a book to cover this.
>> You might want to read what the reviews on Amazon say about this book.
>> "This is the gold standard text and a go to volume every genealogist
>> to conduct themselves as a professional. I thought I was a professional,
>> until I read this book. It has forever changed how I conduct family
>> Anyone who takes what they are doing seriously, will pick it up, and
>> from the wisdom it contains and the practical aspects it has to teach
>> It also made doing my research more methodical, logical, and less time
>> In Britain, we do not have this sort of thing, outside of the
>> Association of
>> Genealogists and Record Agents (AGRA). Anyone can call themselves a
>> genealogist, and practice as such. In many ways the Americans can be
>> documented as more professional in their standards than we are. There is
>> probably a stronger emphasis in America in keeping up-to-date with
>> in the field, i.e. being re-certified and not accepted for life.
>> Whether this is necessary in Britain is another question. But this does
>> illustrate that they have thought widely about the issues involved, have
>> taken actions to set standards, and have documented those.
>> My colleague Debbie Kennett has quite often blogged about these issues,
>> she is the social media expert for the Guild of One-Name Studies, has a
>> widely read blog, and has written The Surnames Handbook: A Guide to
>> Name Research in the 21st Century (2012). So it is worth tracking down
>> she has said on this subject.
>> The phenomenon talked about having on paper more ancestors than the known
>> population of the British Isles (or Wales) back in history is very
>> well-established in population genetics, and it is called "Pedigree
Plus the references
>> It is most easily understood in Royal descents - an example cited in the
>> above reference is King Alfonso XII of Spain only having
>> 4-great-grandparents instead of 8. Charles II, the last Hapsburg King of
>> Spain, is the extreme example.
>> Credit should also be given to Dr. Andrew Millard of Durham University,
>> overall editor of GENUKI as well as the GENUKI pages for London, who in
>> response to Danny Boyle and his royal descent from King Edward III on
>> produced this calculation for the BBC Radio programme "More or Less"
>> subject. He shows, with a referenced article, that 99% of English people
>> probably descend from King Edward III. Documenting it for the vast
>> of us though, is something else.
>> Adam Rutherford, a relatively well-known and respected TV science
>> and presenter, says basically the same thing in his recent book: A Brief
>> History of Everyone Who Has Ever Lived: The Stories in our Genes (2016).
>> Incidentally, there is a very interesting meeting at University College,
>> London, in June 2017 featuring some of the above, plus Dr. Turi King,
>> Mark Thomas, etc., which unfortunately I cannot get to as I will be on
>> holiday in Norway. It also has the lead DNA expert from Ancestry there
>> (Mike Mulligan), and as Ancestry has now sold over 4 million DNA Kits
>> world-wide - it shows the power of national TV advertising in this field.
>> This discussion on the linking of pedigrees to healthcare will run and
>> as it is such a nice topic for debates like this. But the days of
>> are essentially over. There is a lady, Julia Bell, known as The DNA
>> Detective, who was on the Victoria Derbyshire programme this week
>> the identity of a man abandoned as a baby in a toilet 61 years ago.
>> I would also have thought the population of Wales through the ages would
>> have been captured somewhere by the work of The Cambridge Group for the
>> History of Population and Social Structure. I have never checked
>> whether it
>> is mentioned at all by Wrigley and Schofield in their classic 1981 book,
>> Population History of England, 1541-1871.
>> If you source your figures from here for Wales, Rhodri, as it would seem
>> do - then it begs the question of how and from where John Davies sourced
>> these figures for his book.
>> Need to find my copy and read up on this point!
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DYFED [mailto:email@example.com]
>> Behalf Of RHODRI DAFIS
>> Sent: 27 May 2017 15:40
>> To: Robert Williams
>> Cc: dyfed(a)rootsweb.com
>> Subject: Re: [Dyfed] primary sources of information.
>> Where does 79,000,000,000 come from.
>> Assuming you were born in 1950, (and allowing 30 years per generation)
>> direct ancestors (born in 1290) both male and female will total
>> Males 4,194,304.
>> John Davies in his "History of Wales" has the following population
>> for Wales (Do some or all include Monmouthshire?).
>> 1530 - 278,000
>> 1620 - 360,000
>> 1770 - 500,000
>> 1800 - 587,000
>> 1851 - 1,163,000
>> The last two figures reflect the Industrial Revolution and the increase
>> due to net immigration from outside Wales to some extent, and I will
>> It is suggested that the Population in 1530, 1620 and 1770 was largely
>> concentrated in Coastal Areas, which were also historic Marcher
>> I would suggest that what we consider Dyfed due to Pembrokeshire and
>> Areas of Carmarthenshire (Carmathen Town was a Port) account for 20% of
>> Total Welsh Population.
>> Based on Muster Books, Hearth Tax Returns and other references, I would
>> suggest that the population of Pembrokeshire, Cardiganshire and
>> Carmarthenshire were respectively.
>> 1530: Pembs. - 27800; Cards. - 11120; Carms. - 16680.
>> 1620: Pembs. - 36000; Cards. - 14400; Carms. - 21600.
>> 1770: Pembs. - 50000; Cards. - 20000; Carms. - 30000.
>> These are figures for the total population, and assuming and equal
>> number of
>> Males and Females have be divided by two, for heads of families, and a
>> further adjustment made for children. If only one male and one female
>> per household, the number of Male heads of families comes down to:
>> 1530: Pembs. - 6950; Cards. - 2780; Carms. - 4170.
>> 1620: Pembs. - 9000; Cards. - 3600; Carms. - 5400.
>> 1770: Pembs. - 12500; Cards. - 5000; Carms. - 7500.
>> But many of these are related to some degree and the number of common
>> ancestors is much smaller. You can divide the above figures for 1530 by
>> 4 for the common male ancestors born in 1410. A total for Dyfed as a
>> of 13,900 males born in 1410.
>> Assuming your family ancestry is entirely in Dyfed you have in theory
>> 33,554,332 male ancestors born in 1200.
>> Divide 33,554,332 by 13,900 and the same ancestor should appear 1,766,022
>> times on average.
>> Allow for the male line dying out and you can quadruple it to 7,064,090.
>> The above assumption is based on the whole of Dyfed, and does not account
>> for the tendancy for local marriages, and the penchant for marrying
>> relatives of some degree or another.
>> That will reduce the number substantially as the same ancestor will
>> after time.
>> A realistic figure is that the same ancestor born in 1200 will appear if
>> could trace all lines a 1000 times.
>> A 1000 appears to concide with Tribal Patriarchs identified by Bartrum
>> Pedigrees in Dwnn, and concides with the lines in my own Ancestry I have
>> managed to trace and confirm, beyond reasonable doubt.
>> Most who are interested in family history have swallowed the line,
>> by Ancestry etc., that you have to work backwards. Fine where there are
>> extant Parish Records and your family were not non-conformists.
>> Most can probably get back to around 1800 before they grind to a halt.
>> It then requires a different approach.
>> You have to cast your net wider, and follow land and any clue in Wills
>> From 1700 backwards it gets somewhat easier.
>> Robert. Wynn's Pedigrees. I have never heard of them, can you elucidate
>> Debrett, Burke and Nicholas I do not consider reliable sources.
>> Dyfed list REVISED resources http://home.clara.net/daibevan/DyfedML.html
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> DYFED-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message