The Divine Right of Kings

Many genealogists search, sometimes elusively, for a connection to Royalty in their ancestral lines. I have had a number of discussions with an experienced and prominent family history expert about whether, or if I can expect to eventually find someone of Noble birth in one of my lines. She is quite sure I will find an individual of such “importance” but, so far, I have not been successful.

A few family researchers very often declare themselves to be related to Charlemagne (742-814). He seems to be the one individual most mentioned by authors of family history stories who try to trace their lines back hundreds of years. I think that is probably due to the fact that he was central to the unification and organization of much of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. It was a time period when records of the Christian church began to be kept in many regions. Most of the modern royal families appear to stretch back to Charlemagne. If you can find a relative in one on these families then somewhere along the line you must be related to this king.

The singular lack of information on the lives of the general populace lead people to wish to tie their own history to a particular royal family, which inevitably leads back to Charlemagne. In places like the United States, historically without such people, there seems to be a wishfulness to find connections to heroes, celebrities or famous political personages. The idea is the same.

It’s intriguing to think that we might have such people related to us as we plod along in our research of our ancestors. But I wonder if these are individuals we really want to be associated with.

In past centuries, members of the highest ruling classes, in many cases those that were part of the nobility or royalty, nations have been led into conflict, people enslaved and millions killed, all in the pursuit of some “national” objective.

Since the dawn of civilization after the last major ice age, the power of certain individuals or groups in societies has come from their ability to influence economic activities in their local communities. As these collections of neighbourhoods grew in number and population there developed overall organizational and/or governing processes to insure the efficient production and distribution of food. Along with that came the need for protection from other, similar groups who might be bent on taking that food or at least controlling the means of its production and distribution. That would have been particularly true if the marauding groups were unsuccessful in their own food-producing activities.

In the earliest civilizations, in all parts of the world, control was largely in the hands of what came to be quasi-religious minorities who claimed to have the approval of their gods in their undertakings that would insure bountiful harvests and protection from predators. That actually worked for thousands of years, when climatic conditions were favourable for continued and prosperous farming activities. As can be observed in almost every instance, though, there was a marked decline of such power when Mother Nature turned against them, through the imposition of droughts, diseases or famines on the general populace. Those in charge very quickly lost their political or regal power when people realized their leaders were not able to forestall the devastating living conditions that accompanied detrimental changes to their environment.

While religious authority had predominance in most early societies, political power eventually was transferred to those who could control economies – initially food production and later trade as well. These individuals became the heads of the aristocracy. Their influence expanded over the centuries, with political control passed down through generations of their families. Over time “noble” families linked up through strategic marriages or economic unions, firmly establishing a unique ruling class.

In every region and time period where ruling classes developed, the majority of citizens were subjugated. Those higher up in the chain gained support by “granting” certain rights or favours to those below them. This was most rigorously defined in the feudalistic period of the middle ages. Those at the lowest end of the scale were no more than slaves. At the top of the pyramids were those called referred to as Royalty. The concept was to become accepted as the Divine Right of Kings.

 

Introductory pages to Patriarcha; or the Natural Power of Kings, by Sir Robert Filmer, Baronet, in 1680; book written as a defense of royalty after the fall of the “Commonwealth” under Oliver Cromwell and Royal rule had been restored. 

There is nothing in the history of these people or families that is naturally or inherently noble. Their position was achieved over time through power, politics and the suppression, sometimes by force, of all other elements of their society.

With regard to our genealogical pursuits, would we rather find a relationship to people with courage, intellectual prowess or statesmanship or the brutal suppressors of freedom? Personally, I get a big kick out of finding blackguards among my ancestors, though they are few, particularly if they got what was coming to them. It’s fun discovering a story about an individual who had a conflict with the law or their neighbours. It is even more satisfying to learn that they may have reformed and moved on to greater accomplishments.

I have ancestors who were land-owners and people of influence in their community. What information I have found about them indicates they were good neighbours who recognized a responsibility to assist their community. In that respect they were “noble” but in no case have I found any that were part of the aristocracy.

I am not sure I would want to find out that I was a descendant of a despot! Or a tyrant whose main claim to fame was the infliction of great harm on his subordinates as, unfortunately, many in the royal or noble classes did.

Generations with few children

I heard a program on the radio (yes, there still is radio) the other day about the current millennial generation choosing to have fewer children than their parents had or no children at all. I don’t know if that is true or not but I suspect it might be as this current generation is considered to be very self-focused (selfish?) and not as tuned into procreation as their predecessors.

In Canada, according to the 2016 census, for the first time in the country’s history, the population has more seniors (16.9%) than children (16.6%). The gap is expected to widen in the future.

Another apparent trend is that people are waiting longer to have children – particularly females – than was the case with their parent’s generation. Fertility is declining. In Canada it is 1.6 children per woman (in the US it is 2.0 children per woman). The trends for most age groups, since the post-Second World War years, is noticeably declining. This is true in the UK as well where women who had turned 45 in 2016 had an average of 1.80 children compared to 2.21 for women who had turned 45 in 1944.

Some analysts attribute the outcomes to increased housing costs and slower wage growth that would certainly affect people’s abilities to raise a family. Job security may also be a factor. Many readers of this will relate to the difficulties their offspring have encountered in establishing themselves and reaching economic security.

What we are seeing may be unique in human history, where one generation decides not to produce a subsequent generation, or produce fewer children such that their own generation may not be replaced. It will be of especial consequence to western civilization as there certainly appears to be families in other parts of the world who have no problem with spitting out children one after the other.

Older people might be concerned about this trend as their own retirement and pension programs may depend on there being a large workforce contributing to government authorized retirement schemes.

Our economy and well-being cannot continue without a healthy labour force paying the bills through their taxes, particularly where social programs for seniors are in place. For just the public-sector pension plans in Canada, the unfunded liability that will be passed to future generations, with no additional people added to the rolls, is already in excess of $300 billion. Many private companies have fallen on hard times recently with the result that employee pensions have been reduced or even scrapped. Bloomberg recently reported that the pension plans of the 200 largest S&P 500 companies also are unfunded to the tune of $382 billion.

For most western nations, the answer will have to come from immigration. Families of the future may look much different – certainly than they did in past centuries. Besides being smaller they will undoubtedly have a greater mix of cultures and races necessitated by the influx of people from all over the world.

My First Car

I was watching a period program on TV the other night and saw an old car that looked a lot like my first one. Very strangely, and disappointingly, in all of the thousands of photos and movies taken by my parents and me over the years, there is not a single one of that first vehicle. What male (perhaps female as well) does not have such a picture!

I had to go online to find a picture of a 1950 Austin like the one I owned. I don’t recall mine had the rear, chrome fender guard, but it was black and very similar to the one the one shown below. It had four doors just like this one, though.

The signal indicators on my little Austin were arms that flipped out from between the doors. They were cute but the cold winter weather in Alberta often meant they would stick shut and you’d have to crank down a window and use your arm. Who remembers learning to signal that way? It was sometimes necessary to scrape frost from the inside of the windshield when the defrost heater could not keep up. The dashboard was fake-wood grain which was kind of classy. The seats were leather. It was a manual, stick-shift model and fun to drive.

As youngsters, most of us probably worked at odd jobs and saved money to buy our first car. My sister and her husband gave theirs to me (and bought another Austin) but it needed quite a bit of work. So a lot of the funds from working (and from parents of course) went toward repairs and maintenance. As with all old cars, the engine required attention as it burned more than a bit of oil. In this case that meant a total over-hall. My dad showed me how to do that. I had to strip the entire engine down and pull it out using a block and tackle. Austins of this time period had cast iron engine blocks and they were very heavy. Even pulling off the head was a task requiring some strength. 

I remember doing the same head-gasket replacement on a Chrysler Simca some years later. I had braced myself over the engine, prepared to lift the presumed heavy part. I was expecting the same experience I had had with the old Austin. But it was made of an aluminum alloy and when I pulled hard to lift it off, it was so light I almost threw it through the hood!

Anyway, we took the engine block to a local machine shop and had the cylinders bored out. That meant replacing the piston rings with larger parts. I think I worked on almost every part of that engine, certainly finding out how things worked. I know I changed out brake shoes and had to put in a new clutch plate. The latter gave out when I was driving downtown and had to come all the way home speed-shifting without the use of a clutch. Readers who know something about stick-shifts will appreciate how this is done.

I learned a lot during this physically-challenging, mentally-frustrating and knuckle-bashing exercise, probably including some really bad language. It was character-building but reinforced my desire to never be an auto-mechanic.

I drove the car for a few years. It did the job for me. I don’t remember why I traded it for the Simca although that was a neat car, too. I am sorry I have no pictures of it either. I often wonder what it would be like to have an old Austin like this again to run around it. With its small size you could certainly park it anywhere and it had lots of room for passengers.

We don’t usually think of cars and trucks as being part of genealogy, but if you think about it, they are every bit a part of family history as a house, or an antique table, or even a vintage milk can such as I have sitting in front of me right now that belonged to my grandfather. Driving has been part of families for over a hundred years. There are many photos in our albums of individuals and family groups posing with their old cars and trucks – except for my first one!

We have seen major developments in style, components and reliability over the decades. It became goals for most families to have a house and a car, especially in North America where great distances had to be covered for work and leisure. Vacations were often designed around driving. Our families had many different makes and models to choose from. Their diversity and the use to which we put our cars are very much a part of our family history.

Getting your very first car is one of the important stages in growing up. I had not thought about mine for a long time but memories of it readily came back as I started to write this.