Developing Theory for Matriarchs

So Daan Botes this would be the solution to your previous post:
=1. Ouma Wiese is PM on her sons' offspring.
2. I must still clear what role she have on any of her daughters' offspring.
3. Ouma Wiese is not necessarily PM because she is the oldest Wiese family member, but because she is older than her sons who will get a patriarch status ans she as family head not - just because her phisiology differ from a male.
4. If Ouma Wiese had not come, but only her two sons an a younger daughter, then I do not see that the Wiese daughter, being the oldest female of the Wiese deserve any status in the Wiese family - she can only(conditionably) be a PM in her future husbands' offspring.
5. If the Wiese daughter's husband's mother is a PM, we have a conflicting node, where I would favour her mother in law to have precedence because
was the oldest female member and had offspring and the daughter not.
So generally it seems that in conflict, the PM of the male line has precedence =

1.2.3 – Ouma Wises is SM/PROG on all her grandchildren because she’s the oldest Wiese mother to arrive in the country. (The same as Oupa Wiese would have been, together with her, if he’d come with her.)
instead, her son is SV/PROG because he’s the oldest Wiese father to arrive in the country.
4. If Ouma Wiese’s daughter had been the oldest Wiese born mother to arrive, then she would have been the SM/PROG for exactly the same reasons her brother was the SV/PROG. But, as her mother came out with her, she is superseded by her mother as SM/PROG.
(If her future husband is an SV – then she is likely to be called the ‘M’ Matriach of his line, but that is a separate category).
5. The conflicting node that you envisage “if the Wiese daughter's husband's mother is a PM’ is the result of a categorical error that doesn’t distinguish between birth Progenitor, and marriage (cultural) Matriarch.
Once we acknowledge they’re incompatible categories, the problem falls away: The Wiese daughter is only SM/PROG if she is the oldest born Wiese mother. (In this instance, she’s not). Her mother-in-law is SM/PROG by virtue of being the oldest born mother of that line.
Whether or not the Wiese daughter is the cultural Matriarch by marriage of her husband’s line is a completely separate category of question, that does not affect the SM/PROG delineator on her birth line.

I see glimmers of light coming through and even believe that we are progressing.
However Sharon, you are using so many "geleerde" concepts, which I will have to study, to make a meaningful contribution, and for that I can not spend time now.
If we can only give ouma Wiese and Sally Alberts the titles which they deserve, I will be happy for time being. Even if we only decide that the head of a family that first arrive in the country will get a "title". If male it would be SV/Prog, if female it will be "make your choice"
What we call today a SM/Prog we cannot change because it was established and entrenched by genealogists as the mother of the family for which her husband was called SV/Prog.

But for the forseeable time it is "Stamvaders of SWA for me"!

What to write in the Genesis article, I will touch sides with you, June - maybe just to the point before it would start to get controversial.

Twinkle twinkle :-)

Nevermind the geleerde concepts, Daan:
It's either
=If we can only give ouma Wiese and Sally Alberts the titles which they deserve, I will be happy for time being.=
Or
=What we call today a SM/Prog we cannot change because it was established and entrenched by genealogists as the mother of the family for which her husband was called SV/Prog.=

You can't have it both ways :-)

And you must remember that all the Oumas who came out and only had daughters are progenitors too. There is no way to avoid that fact.

As to your Genesis article, I suggest you can only write ABOUT the controversy. Should be good.

Nog n idee:
=What we call today a SM/Prog we cannot change because it was established and entrenched by genealogists as the mother of the family for which her husband was called SV/Prog.=

Well then maybe use the terms to distinguish between the PROG (birth progenitor mother) and the SM (Stam Moeder/ Matriarch/ SVs wife)

I hope this was not the end of it. Did the discussion move somewhere else?

I think it was. Do you have something to add, Wietz? It was an interesting discussion. If I recall, the crux was the title of the first woman who comes to SA, who only had daughters.

I have read the definitions but not this entire thread as yet... but I would like to post my quandary here for discussion and clarification.

About this person (previously confused with another of the same name, still trying to establish the relationship but perhaps her neice) Anna Maria Six van Chandelier - a Dutch woman born in Dutch Bengal.

- I have just removed her "SM" suffix (although left the profile pic for the time being) because I don't think that she qualifies, at least until we have more evidence... but not 100% certain.
The only fairly well established facts with supporting evidence are that she had a daughter to husband Samuel Elseiver in Ceylon (probably went with him and married him when he was posted there), and then later that daughter went out to the Cape with her father and 2nd wife of about 6 years. The daughter did marry, but had no offspring, and left her husband and returned to the Netherlands in 1720. See my notes in the "About" section and please advise. :-)

Melanie, off the top of my head - She would be the Stam Moeder because she was the mother of the Stam Vader's children - IF THEY DIED IN SA.
(She would be this, even if she never came to SA herself, but her children did). What she wouldn't be is the female PROGenitor - because that is the oldest female of the line emigrating to SA.

If none of her children emigrate and procreate in SA, then, I think you are correct - she isn't a South African SM.

Some time since we last had discussions!
Just some loose comments:
a) The theory evolved in the end to the "most senior lady who moved to SA and had offspring - to only have daughters was not a requirement. In fact my first effort was to "honour" those women (Tannie Wiese) who came to Namibia as head of the family, with their "stamvader" SONS, and not being recognised in the same way as when she was male. After a few iterations the term PROG was decided on - i.e. had descendants (sons or daughters)

b) SM was given as a title to a wife of a Stamvader. Stamvader could only be given to a male who arrived in SA with his children or subsequently had children. If "stamvader" was assigned, the mother of those children is SM regardless whether she ever visites SA or not. Therefore Melanie, per definition Anna Maria is SM. Also, if the second wife accompanied Elsevier with children she had prior to or after arrival, she also has the title SM (even if she would not have accompanied him.
(A very special case which we have dealt with, and which should strip her (and her husband) from any titles would be the case where a son arrived in SA first and had offspring. the son would be Stamvader 1. Subsequent arrival of his parents earn them no titles at all except if they had more children accompanying them or children born subsequent to arrival. And still then he would only be stamvader 2)

c) "she was the mother of the Stam Vader's children - IF THEY DIED IN SA. "
It is not necesarily a requirement that the children must have died in SA. In fact, the only case which i can think of now would be where the father(and mother) leave SA without him or any of his sons had any descendants.

Pse conribute your thoughts since I do not think the final word has been said.

C. Yes, IF THEY DIED IN SA was a quick shorthand attempt to sum up the situation in which the children created SA descendants. Not a good one - they wouldn't need to die here to create SA descendants, as you say.
A quick look at the children in this example suggested that they didn't do either though. It seemed to me that they might not even have come to SA, or if they did they didn't stay and procreate.
If this is the case then I'd say it would be silly to call her an SM. There is no Stam.

A. I think you are referencing this =I recall, the crux was the title of the first woman who comes to SA, who only had daughters.= that was a description of your conundrum, not of the solution. We decided that even if she only had daughters, or course she was still the PROG.

Thanks, Sharon and Daniel. This is a tricky one as I have not yet been able to ascertain the full picture about Johanna Constantia's full siblings - if any survived. There is uncertainty about the Jan and Johan identities (they could conceivably be the same person and the child of the second wife). At this stage we only know about Johanna C, and she was definitely born in Ceylon and died in the Netherlands - and had no issue in the Cape. I am hoping that George Homs will respond to my messages and provide some information about his sources!

That's great, Melanie - do let us know.

Just a quick update - I have managed to contact someone in Amsterdam who may be able to help with the genealogies - no promises as yet but I'll get back with an update when I know.
:-)

Go gal! :-)

Having read through this again, I must admit that the theory was considerably evolved from the first to the last post. Maybe it is time that we just dig out the last agreed formulation and post it here, so that we have a common departure point in trying to solve new riddles. I will dig it up and post it here.

Enough to say that a number of the earlier titles were created in search of a solution. The only ones decide on was stamvader(SV/PROG), stammoeder(SM) and PROG(applicable to females). (SM/PROG) is a combination for females satisfying the SM and PROG requirements. Also SM is the only title not requiring the bearer(in rare cases) to have ever visited SA.

http://www.geni.com/projects/South-African-Progenitors-Matriarchs-S...

Thanks peeps.

I did read those guidelines and tried to apply them to the woman I've mentioned above, but owing to some facts still being unknown, it was difficult to apply the label with certainty.

Unfortunately my Netherlands contact was unable to turn up anything. I will come back to the matter again when I have more time. Are you happy for her to stay without the label in the meantime?

If we have no evidence that she had a South African family line , removing the label makes sense.

I can see some motivation not to give her the title SM.
However Elsevier did arrive in SA with at least one child (the youngest son) in SA. That makes him stamvader and the mother of that son automatically becomes SM regardless whether she ever visited SA.

What lacks in our theory so far is to define who long (generations) a "stam" must be to qualify for a stam and therefore to have a SV/SM.

Only if we have a definition like : If a family line arriving in SA goes into extinction when all the family members left the country or died without having descendants, the family line does not qualify as a stam".

The above definition would exclude Elsevier's line with Anna Maria as a stam since each the members would satisfy the definition requirements and therefore remove her as SM and I could practically live with that.

Pse think of other situations where we have to revisit whether we actually have a stam or not.

"If a family line arriving in SA goes into extinction when all the family members left the country or died without having descendants, the family line does not qualify as a stam".
Seems logical to me, but I'm not invested in it.

I have followed this discussion but not revisited in depth our previous definitions - they were very involved!!

I agree with Daan - if someone arrives in a country and no subsequent descendants are born in that country they are not head of a line of descent and so do not qualify as SM or SV - they had no progeny born in SA and so this definition needs to be included in a section of Exclusions.

There are a number of people who didn't have/or were not known to have children but arrived in South Africa - Peter Bertram Oortman and Joseph Anton Frech for instance - where the displayed image has been used as a marker.

It is good to review the SV's and SM's from time to time as often the title is erroneously applied - very complicated as we previously discovered when we looked at it all indepth, although on the face of it it shouldn't be!!!

I think once you understand that the Stam idea applies to a patrlineal model of descent - ie through the father's surname;
then it isn't so complex to realise that his wife will not necessarily be the oldest living female of her own matriline.

Deciding what constitutes a Stam is largely a separate thought process

> isn't so complex to realise that his wife will not necessarily be the oldest living female of her own matriline.<
I am not quite clear on the relevance for Anna - Maria's SM-ship.

Since her SM-ship were derived from the patrilineal line, it is in fact necessary to determine whether this is a "valid" stam. If valid, she retains SM, if not, as suggested, then Melanie's viewpoint is correct.

I'm commenting on June's "very complicated as we previously discovered when we looked at it all indepth" - not on AnnaMaria

I think it is time to define what constitutes a Stam (Prog) line.
I would say that having living descendants is the logical prerequisite.

Having living descendants I don't think is a pre-requisite - lines come to an end!! My comment was referring to the complicated scenarios that emerged when we looked at this a year or so ago, when I thought we agreed on many points that are laid out in the project. Maybe that needs to be looked at and up-dated if there are any changes to be made - perhaps include an exclusions section.

Agree that we should define a stam.
My suggested definition : "If a family line arriving in SA goes into extinction when all the family members left the country or died without having descendants, the family line does not qualify as a stam", was based on my view that a stam was formed the moment any descendants of the SV was born in SA.
I am also of the opinion that living descendants are not a prerequisite. If it is, we wil continously have to analyse where families became extinct and remove them from all databases even if they existed for centuries. I would like to limit it to only similar cases to that of the Elseviers x Anna Maries

I don't have a strong opinion either way.
I don't see how families would be removed from data bases simply because the SV is no longer an SV; and I do think there needs to have been some descendants for the definition to make any sense at all, but perhaps there's something important I'm missing.
Are there data bases for SVs only?

.... "having living descendants is the logical prerequisite" - living is the bit that isn't required. Having descendants born in South Africa is a prerequisite is how I see it. :-)

... further thoughts - a family moves away from the country a number of generations down the line of descendants - leaving no living descendants - the original Prog wouldn't change their status ... by my way of thinking!

This is why I say it is such an involved subject and manages to open up endless debate!

Yes - that makes sense. Just descendants: Should it be 'male' descendants?

I see I used the word living in this definition too - where I actually meant 'living in SA'. Just in case that confuses later on: revising:
= I think once you understand that the Stam idea applies to a patrilineal model of descent - ie through the father's surname;
then it isn't so complex to realise that his wife will not necessarily be the oldest SA Immigrant female of her own matriline.=

No - I don't think descendants have to be male. Progeny is progeny?