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
> pretty good, as it has an abundance of references to the conclusions made.
> With Burke and Debrett, it depends on when the volumes were compiled -
> and a
> now-forgotten genealogist, called John Horace Round, took great delight in
> 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 needs
> 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 learn
> from the wisdom it contains and the practical aspects it has to teach you.
> 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
> 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 Family
> 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" on
> 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
> 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 8,368,608.
> Males 4,194,304.
> John Davies in his "History of Wales" has the following population figures
> 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 is
> 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 Lordships.
> 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
> 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 whole
> 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 appear
> 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 and
> 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