Talk:Pocahontas

An event in this article is a April 5 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

---

Contents

1 Geneologies 1.1 Bushes are not directly descended from Pocahontas 1.2 No relationship - not valid information for inclusion. 1.3 Other noteworthy descendents? 2 Why call her Pocahontas? 3 Is not the word "indian" missused? 4 Pocahontas images 5 Link to "Indian Removal Act" 6 Reputable Genealogists?

Geneologies

Bushes are not directly descended from Pocahontas

Since this erroneous factoid gets reinserted from time-to-time -- for the record neither U.S. President Bush was directly descended from Pocahontas. Pocahontas's only grandchild was Jane Rolfe who married Robert Bolling. Their only child was John Bolling, who married Mary Kennon. Mary Kennon's sister was Martha Kennon who was an ancestor of the Bushes. A second connection is that after Jane Rolfe's death, Robert Bolling remarried to Ann Stith. They had several children, including one also named Robert Bolling. This Robert Bolling, who was a half-brother to John Bolling, was also an ancestor of the Bushes. So there are two indirect relations with Pocahontas but no direct blood lineage. [[User:Bkonrad|]] 15:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the most thorough genealogy I've come across (http://www.sitepalace.com/bush/index.htm#TOC) shows that President Bush is, in fact, a Pocahontas descendant - it shows Robert Bolling,Jr. to be Jane Rolf's son. I've done a cut-and-past job from that website (I hope I don't get charged with copyvio). The line goes thus:

GENERATION 13 4564. John ROLFE was born 1585 in Heacham, Norfolk, , England and was christened 6 May 1585 in Heacham, Norfolk, , England. He died 22 Mar 1622 in Jamestown, James City, , Virginia,USA. John married Pocahontas Motoaka - (Princess) on 5 Apr 1614 in Jamestown, , , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

4565. Pocahontas Motoaka - (Princess) was born about 1595 in Werowocomoco, , , Virginia,USA. She died Mar 1617 in Gravesend, Kent, , England and was buried 21 Mar 1617 in St. George's, Gravesend, Kent, England. [Parents]

GENERATION 12 2282. Thomas ROLFE (Lieutenant) was born 30 Jan 1615 in Jamestown, Virginia, USA. He died 1656 in Virginia, USA. Thomas married Jane POYTHRESS in , , , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

2283. Jane POYTHRESS was born about 1620 in Jamestown, Virginia, USA. She died 1676 in Charles City, Virginia, USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 11 1140. Robert BOLLING (Colonel) was born 26 Dec 1646 in All Hallows, London, Middlesex, England. He died 7 Jul 1709 in Kippax, Charles City, Virginia, USA and was buried 17 Jul 1709 in Kippax, Charles City, Virginia, USA. Robert married Jane ROLFE on 1675 in Petersburg, Ind. City, , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

1141. Jane ROLFE was born 10 Oct 1650 in Petersburg, Virginia, USA. She died 1676 in Kippax, Charles City, , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 10 570. Robert BOLLING (Jr.) (Major) was born 25 Jan 1681 in Charles City, Virginia, USA. He died before 3 Jan 1748/1749 in , , Prince George, Virginia,USA. Robert married Anne May COCKE on 27 Jun 1706. [Parents]

571. Anne May COCKE was born 27 Jan 1705 in Prince George County, Virginia. [Parents]

GENERATION 9 284. James MUNFORD (Major) was born 1708 in Prince George County, Virginia. He died 25 Apr 1754 in Prince George County, Virginia. James married Elizabeth BOLLING on 1727 in Amelia County, Virginia. [Parents]

285. Elizabeth BOLLING was born 17 Dec 1709 in Prince George County, Virginia. She died 1754 in Amelia County, Virginia. [Parents]

GENERATION 8 142. Robert MUNFORD married Anne BROADNAX. [Parents]

143. Anne BROADNAX was born in Charles City County, Virginia. She died after 1780. [Parents]

GENERATION 7 70. John SHELLMAN (Jr.) was born 5 May 1756 in Frederickstown, , , Maryland,USA. He died 17 Apr 1838 in Savannah, , , Georgia,USA. John married Clarissa MUNFORD. [Parents]

71. Clarissa MUNFORD was born in Amelia County, Virginia. She died Feb 1845. [Parents]

GENERATION 6 34. Samuel Howard FAY was born 21 Jul 1804 in Cambridge, , Middlesex, Massachusetts,USA. He died 16 Aug 1847 in Brooklyn, , , New York,USA. Samuel married Susan SHELLMAN on 5 Jul 1825 in Savannah, , , Georgia,USA. [Parents]

35. Susan SHELLMAN was born 20 Feb 1808 in Savannah, , , Georgia,USA. She died 12 Jan 1887. [Parents]

GENERATION 5 16. James Smith BUSH (Reverend) was born 15 Jun 1825 in Rochester, , Monroe, New York,USA. He died 11 Nov 1889 in Ithaca, , Tompkins, New York,USA. James married Harriet Eleanor FAY on 24 Feb 1859 in New York City, , , New York,USA. [Parents]

17. Harriet Eleanor FAY was born 29 Oct 1829 in Savannah, , Chatham, Georgia,USA. She died 27 Feb 1924 in Boston, , Suffolk, Massachusetts,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 4 8. Samuel Prescott BUSH was born 4 Oct 1863 in Brick Church, , , New Jersey,USA. He died 8 Feb 1948 in Columbus, , Franklin, Ohio,USA. Samuel married Flora SHELDON on 20 Jun 1894 in Columbus, , , Ohio,USA. [Parents]

9. Flora SHELDON was born 17 Mar 1872 in , Franklin, , Ohio,USA. She died 4 Sep 1920 in Watch Hill, , , Rhode Island,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 3 4. Prescott Sheldon BUSH was born 15 May 1895 in Columbus, Franklin, , Ohio,USA. He died 8 Oct 1972 in New York City, , , New York,USA. Prescott married Dorothy WALKER on 6 Aug 1921 in Kennebunkport, York, , Maine,USA. [Parents]

5. Dorothy WALKER was born 1 Jul 1901 in Nr. Walker's, Point, York, Maine,USA. She died 19 Nov 1992 in Greenwich, , , Connecticut,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 2 2. George Herbert Walker BUSH was born 12 Jun 1924 in Milton, Massachusetts, USA. He married Barbara PIERCE on 6 Jan 1945 in Rye, New York, USA. [Parents]

3. Barbara PIERCE was born 8 Jun 925 in Rye, Westchester, New York, USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 1 1. George Walker BUSH was born 6 Jul 1946 in New Haven, New Haven, Connecticut. [Parents]

There is a tremendous amount of speculation about Pocahontas descendents. I don't pretend to be an expert on it, but I've come across a numer of quite convincing sites that dismiss the direct Bush-Pocahontas lineage. [1] (http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/1001/poca_desc.html), [2] (http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/1001/poca_desc.html), [3] (http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/P/POCAHONTAS+2001+123452260+F), [4] (http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/P/POCAHONTAS+2001+91362489+F) indicate that Robert BOLLING (Jr.) of Generation 10 was the child of Col. Robert Bolling with Anne Sith not Jane Rolfe. [5] (http://members.aol.com/lredtail/poca.html) indicates Col. Robert Bolling and Jane Rolfe had only one child, "John Bolling of "Cobbs" (Colonel) b 1676 d 1729". [6] (http://www.ishipress.com/pocahon.htm) also corroborated this. I could probably find more, but I think I've made the point. older≠wiser 15:34, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Yes, you've made your point - whether conclusively, well, I guess we'll have to wait for further research to tell. From my own point of view, the jury is still out on that one (but even that's a departure from the position I would have stoutly maintained as late as yesterday). I'll make some more comments under Lir's, below. David Cannon 10:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If people think he is descended, then the wikipedia should include the information. Lirath Q. Pynnor

For once, I'm inclined to agree with older≠wiser - not necessarily with his conclusions, but with his view that the information should NOT be in the article. As I said in my comments above, I consider the jury still to be out on this question. If so, both opinions (that Bush IS or IS NOT a Pocahontas descendant) are POV. This encyclopedia strives for NPOV, so I don't think the article should take a stand either way.

I do propose, however, that the article include a sentence or two about the controversy, without taking sides, like this: A number genealogists have linked Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush with Pocahontas, but this link has not been proved. The connection depends on Robert Bolling, Jr. (a 10th generation ancestor of George W. Bush) being the son of Robert Bolling and Jane Rolfe (granddaughter of Pocahontas), a connection which has been disputed by many reputable genealogists, who believe that the younger Bolling was the son of Anne Sith, not Jane Rolfe. The Bush family, for its part, has not confirmed, denied, or publicly expressed an opinion on, whether or not they are descended from Pocahontas. David Cannon 10:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with an addition phrased such as you propose. older≠wiser 12:21, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Done. BTW, I've removed the sentence, "Thomas Rolfe remained in England." This source (http://www.sitepalace.com/bush/index.htm#TOC) says that he died in Virginia. However, if anyone can come up with a contrary source, we'll factor that in. David Cannon 00:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I need to revert my own edition. I've had some correspondence with the author of the genealogical site I referred to, (http://www.sitepalace.com/bush/index.htm#TOC) and this convinces me that older≠wiser is right. I print (in full) my e-mail to the author, and his reply:

Dear Dr. Barker,

I have been researching the family tree of President George W. Bush, and have found your online genealogy very helpful. It is the most comprehensive that I have found.

There is one problem that I'd like to hear your comments on. Your genealogy shows that President Bush is a descendant of Pocahontas through Jane Rolfe (1141). I (and a number of others) have tried inserting the information in Wikipedia (an online encyclopedia), but a number of others have drawn my attention to other websites that dispute the link, claiming that the younger Bolling was the son of Anne Sith, not Jane Rolfe. Even on your genealogy, I find a problem with it, namely this:

• Jane Rolfe died in 1676.
• Her supposed son, Robert Bolling, Jr. (570), was born in 1682.

I got these dates from your genealogy. Now, how can someone be born six years after his mother has died? Either the dates are wrong (quite possible), or the link is wrong (equally possible).

Something in me really wants to find that President Bush is a Pocahontas descendant, but the internal contradiction in the data makes the connection appear tenuous at best. What are your thoughts on this matter?

Yours sincerely,

David Cannon.

Dr Barker's reply:

This is a wrong connection, he descends from the Stith connection, and not the Boling. Sorry for the problem, we have corrected it in our files, but we have not yet put up the correction on the Internet. Sorry.

Lowell A. Barker

In view of this information, I will now change what I wrote yesterday, to reflect the fact that the Rolfe link has been shown to be mistaken.

No relationship - not valid information for inclusion.

Since it is obvious there is no relationship between Pocahontas and the president, I have removed any references to it in the article which is after all about Pocahontas, not aboput people who can not claim descent from her which would only be good for trivia anyway.

This information is more suited for this page:

"A number of genealogists have attempted to link Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush with Pocahontas, but this link has been proved to be based on the mistaken assumption that Robert Bolling, Jr. (a 10th generation ancestor of George W. Bush) was the son of Robert Bolling and Jane Rolfe (granddaughter of Pocahontas). This connection has been disproved by many reputable genealogists, who point out that Rolfe died in 1676, six years before the birth of the younger Bolling, who therefore could not have been her son. He was evidently the son of Anne Stith, whom his father married after Jane Rolfe's death. The Bush family, therefore, is not directly descended from Pocahontas."

The above information would be better off on a page that cared about the president or his ancestry, and even then, if there is no relationship, then why even make mention of it. Plank

Incorrect information about the relationship has been repeatedly added to the article and there is obviously some mistaken information in common circulation. There is nothing inappropriate about including a clarification about the correct information here. older≠wiser 16:21, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

If there are rumors about Bush being related to Pocahontas that are not true, I think there is nothing wrong with this article shooting that down. After all, this is an encycolopedia. So one should walk away more informed. (I understand that several presidents in the past have tried to trace their line to her, such as Jefferson and Washington, but I remember where the source was for that so I've left it out of the article) Grice 00:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other noteworthy descendents?

I don't think it's the place of an encyclopedia to have to shoot down rumors of various kinds, unless they've clearly entered the common currency (which cannot be said of Pocahontas-Bush geneology; how many people are aware of such talk?). Instead of wasting a paragraph to explain that Pocahontas isn't related to GWB, why not mention the prominent Virginians that are known to actually *be* related to her? I know that there are some noteworthy descendents of her son Thomas. Funnyhat 22:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to including notable descendants. But I think it is worth having the disclaimer regarding Bush (although it could perhaps be briefer). That bogus information has had to be excised from the article on repeated occasions -- it was placed there to prevent future reinsertion of the bogus rumor. User:Bkonrad/sig 22:35, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Funnyhat is right Bush need not be mentioned in this article! It is irrelevant. Plank 23:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What we could do is just say something like "there have been attemps to link Bush with Pocahontas without any success" and then simply add a link to the source that goes into more detail about it. Grice 09:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why call her Pocahontas?

If we know that this person's real name was Matoaka and that "Pocahontas" was only her nickname, why is this article still called "Pocahontas?" It should be titled "Matoaka."

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Niteowlneils 16:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is not the word "indian" missused?

We can not avoid using the word "indian" in TV shows and movies, but people who knows enough to write an enciclopaedia knows that Americas are not part of India. Should not be used instead a more correct term, as simple as "native"? --Asierra 15:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the two in the intro to Native American--after that it gets problematic, as they are part of a quote, part of a link, etc. Niteowlneils 16:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Though I'm not going to object to Niteowlneils changes, it should be noted that the need to destroy any associations with the word "indian" with the Native Americans/American Indians has not been completely successful (they often call themselves "Indians" as do others and their neighborhoods are still called "Indian Reservations") and I don't think its the job of Wikipedia to further this objective. If the word Indian had by now become a complete taboo, I might think differently. For the most part, the word Indian is just a historical reminder that names are something other people give you. Aside from the natives wrongly being labeled Indians by Columbus, the name India was given to that land by westerners (everything east of the Indus river being labeled the land of the Indies) and not by the indigenous peoples of India itself. Thats my two cents on that. Grice 13:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pocahontas images

There is an extant contemporaneous woodcut portrait of Pocahontas. Are there any public domain prints of this?

I find the captions on the portraits a bit hard to swallow - are they honestly trying to suggest that the original primitive engraving is an accurate picture of what she looked like?

How can we know? Does anybody have a photograph of her to compare the original engraving? No we don't. But we do know that the original was done while she was alive and that the later one that distorts her features is based off the earlier one. The earlier one has more authority and the later one has none. Grice 00:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

For goodness sake it looks like a gremlin! To say that the second portrait "Europeanizes" her is faintly ridiculous - it simply makes her look more *human* - other than dress and make-up, I can't see how this picture has been "Europeanized".

A gremlin? Well that's your opinion. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities. Grice 00:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Please forgive me for I am interrupting you, gentlemen, but, if I may say so, I agree that she does look dreadful in the first portrait. Anglius

Link to "Indian Removal Act"

I'm only someone trying to learn about Pocahontas, so I'm not exactly knowledgable on this topic.

However, I'm wondering if there isn't some confusion with the mention of an "Indian Removal Act" and the link to the (2 centuries later) Andrew Jackson Indian_Removal_Act of 1830. Maybe there was another similarly named act brought on by the King of England at the time? -paul v

I do not believe so, sir. Anglius

Reputable Genealogists?

Who are the genealogist that are said to be reputable in the article? A reputable one would be published in a book and would be a professional. Please list some names and publications. Dwain 19:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)