Great-grandson, how?

Question

I'm reading about a Napoleonic general who was born in 1775 and he is the great-grandson of a famous marshal who was born in 1599 and died in 1660. How could he be his great-grandson? I can't think of a plausible scenario!

Answer 1

Like you, I am suspicious about the accuracy of this information. Did you get it from Wikipedia? That site has Count Antoine Charles Louis Lasalle born in May 10, 1775. Wiki says his grandfather was  Abraham de Fabert, a Marshal of France. If you click on the link to Abraham, it says he lived October 11, 1599 to May 17, 1660.

If that is the only source you've checked, I'd keep looking.

If Lasalle is a descendant of de Fabert, check out the maternal line. The name had to go from Fabert to Lasalle somehow.  It's possible Lasalle's grandfather was named Abraham and the Wiki poster has combined two people as one. That could explain the date gap between Lasalle and de Fabert.   KISS - Keep it Simple and Sensible.

Answer 2

It may be a slip-up and should be great-great grandson, but you'll notice that it does work if all the fathers had been round about the age of 45 at the time of the births.

Answer 3

The gr grandson is not shown as being born prior to the alleged gr grandfather.  What IS being stated would mean LONNNNG generations, ie each son becoming a father at 50 or more years old. Even at that.. the facts are being stretched to the point of snapping. You are probably right, that it does not make sense.

Of course, do you hang out here much?  If so, you constantly hear me, or the other regulars, who issue warnings all the time-

Just because you find family trees on the internet, NEVER assume that they are factual.  I'll take that one step more. NEVER assume that anyone else's work (online/offline) is right. Use what you find a possible, then make sure that it is backed up by quality documents/records.

Welcome to genealogy.  Garbage/ bad research is standard operating procedure.  

Answer 4

The answer would be to research the lineage in French history books and see if it's true. 176 year for 4 generations isn't that bad. It's only 44 year average per generation and one late-life second marriage could easily account for the gap in ages. It's also possible they skipped someone in documenting the lineage and there's someone missing in the middle. There's a very infamous case of this in a leading American genealogy journal. The researcher was seemingly meticulous, but he mistook a man and his wife as the parents of their grandchildren. The reason is that the son had the same name as his father and married a woman with the same first name as his mother. The publication was supposed to review all of the work, but it didn't get caught that a woman was giving birth to 5 children while she was 54-65 years old. So take it all with a grain of salt and research it with credible historical resources.

Answer 5

Well my maths is shocking, but if we assume that the famous marshal produced a child just before by his death (1660 the marshal being aged in his late 50's-60's) his son would grow up and have child in his later years as well by 1710-20 (marshal's grandson is born) then the marshal's grandson produces a son when he is in his 50's-60's = 1770 Great Grandson Napoleonic General. I think it's possible.... ?? David Letterman had a son aged 56, so yes I think its plausible :) Hope this helps

Answer 6

It's a mistake in someone's tree. You can't have a child before you are born.

Answer 7

It is totally possible. When you are dealing with a line of men, the generations can be a whole lot longer than that of women.  

From a great grandson to his great grandfather is four generations. From the years 1599 to 1775 is only 176 years, which means that each generation is about 44 years long.  Looking at my own family, my dad was born when his dad was 44 and his mom was 42.   If you get into genealogy, you would quickly see that many men had two or three wives and had children with all of them, well into their 50's or 60's.

An example out of recent history was Tony Randall.  He married  a woman after the  death of his first wife.  At the time of marriage, Tony was 75 and his wife was  25.  They went on to have two children together.  The first one was born when he was 77 and the other was born when he was 78. That is a pretty long generation there.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Randal...

So, you are probably looking at one of those lines that were just fruitful and multiplied!