Suffix for 1820 Settlers

Many of the British 1820 settlers have had SV/PROG added to their profiles in the Suffix field. I wonder whether this is strictly accurate?

My understanding is that whilst Stamvader/Stamouer may be directly translated as meaning progenitor, it refers more specifically to the early Dutch/German and French settlers (broadly speaking as other countries were also represented in the people employed by the VOC).

I put forward for your consideration the proposal that the suffix for the British 1820 settlers should therefore be just "PROG" and a request be made to a curator to add a note on the profile identifying them as 1820 settlers. This is preferable to having "1820 Settler" included in the name fields.

Private User Private User Private User Private User

Further thoughts.

We need to establish which of the 1820 Settlers WERE Progenitors. Some had children born in South Africa, which makes them the Progenitors of that line, but others didn't and the one of their sons was the Prog. Thoughts?

June,
1) You want to remove the SV (or SM) off the PROG suffix on 1820 settler progenitors cos the 1820 Settlers were English?
But if the language of the Progenitor him/herself is determining the suffix, then the French Huguenots should not have SV either.

I think some of the SVs might initially have been appended by Afrikaans users onto their English ancestors, so it might be a bit touchy to remove the Afrikaans. But I could be wrong; and I myself have no objection either way.

2. I haven't seen '1820 settler' in name fields, but I agree that it doesn't belong there. My feeling is that Progenitors should all be MPed, and the fact that they were 1820 settlers could usefully be added in the curator note?

3. The eldest grandparent of a family line who arrives/dies in SA should be the PROG, I think? So, I'd say the grandfather who comes to SA with 2 grown sons, is still the progenitor of the grandchildren born in SA, That's my thought - interested to hear how others think through it.

I wait to see what people think! I don't see the 1820 settlers as Stamvaders and so far have never seen and 1820 or earlier/later British Prog listed on the Stamouers.com pages. The french Huguenots are.

I have removed any 1820 settler reference I have come across in name fields and made Curator notes. If we agree that they should be MP's then I think people need to add stuff to the "About Me's" - I have been adding the C Note to those who came as part of a party - children included - but wonder whether they should all be Master Profiles.

PROG status - debatable!

Oh, are you saying you don't see the 1820 settlers as SA progenitors at all?

I used SV/Prog as a billingual indication of stamvader regardless of country of origin.
Is there any rationale to make a difference between different countries of origin?
Stamvader I have used up to now as the oldest male who came to South Africa. Eg Wietse Botes came to South Africa with all his children already born in Europe. He is according to SAG the progenitor.

Of course they are progenitors - I don't want this blown out of proportion - I am not picking a fight etc.! Judging by the inclusion or not on the Stamouers webpages the term Stamvaders/Stamouers seem to be exclusively for those who went to SA 1795 and there fore before the 1820 Settlers. Going back to the discussions last year when the 2nd web page was formed I got the impression that Stamouer/Stamvader in the eyes of many referred to the early Dutch/German/French settlers - it was what they are referred to as.

Extracts of what Alexander Armenis wrote - (the nearest we got to a definition)

<June, I believe the issue you raise of there being numerous other stamvaders of non-Afrikaner heritage is inherently a misguided attempt to include non-Afrikaner progenitors to a list that for all intents and purposes is actually aimed at grouping the 'EARLY SETTLERS' who landed at the Cape of Good Hope, I understand the frustration you feel and implore you to refrain from oversimplifying the issue into a racial issue of exclusion versus inclusion.

.........
Specifically, the Dutch period under VOC administration from 1652 to 1795; as opposed to the commencement of British administration from 1795 onwards. The division of 1795 having more to do with the introduction of French Napoleonic rule in the Netherlands and British advances in South Africa for the 1st time, leading to new groups/waves of settlers arriving at various ports in SA.

and ...

... SV (stamvader/stammoeder) only be used when referring to the EARLY SETTLERS to the Cape of Good Hope (1652-1795). The Afrikaans 'stamvader/moeder' is relevant to the context of the DUTCH rule during the period (1652-1795).

... South African Stamouers Project (1652-1795) ... refer to the EARLY SETTLERS that arrived in SA during DUTCH rule.

... Progenitor be used to designate later settlers into the SA milieu. The English word 'progenitor' seems relevant in this context as the first period of British rule begins in the year 1795.

... South African Progenitors Project (1795 to the present) ... include ONLY the later settlers to SA. This project may include whomever June and Sharon feel is relevant to the post-VOC era.>

If they are all SV/PROGS then fine but I think there has always been a distinction - unwritten but there none the less. A rose by any name etc. SV in the suffix has always indicated to me that the person was a Prog before 1795, and I understood that the 1820 Settlers and my grandfathers (an Englishman and a Scot) who went to South Africa in the latter part of the 1800's were not "Stamvaders".

So - I have obviously misunderstood! I just think it would be good to get this right - clarification is needed!

I go with your explanation of who is the PROG Daan - it is what I always thought! Night night!

Woa there! Not picking a fight at all, at all.
We're talking across translations.

I was trying to figure out whether by saying 'the 1820 settlers aren't SV/Progs' - you meant that they weren't Progenitors at all , or you meant that they weren't Stamvaders. (Which, to those of us used to translating from Afrikaans in our heads, reads as Progenitors anyway.) When you said you "have never seen an 1820 or earlier/later British Prog listed on the Stamouers.com.page" (which is funny, because I put my 1820 progenitors there everytime I found them - wonder who has been deleting them??) I became confused as to whether you were actually asking about their status as progenitors; ie were they not early enough to be called progenitors. I was pondering this. After I went to bed, I decided you couldn't have been asking that.

Your upset response here confirms that you were talking about their status on the project. Sorry if I was being dense, but I wasn't trying to cause upset, my friend.

No worries Sharon - it is the interpretation I guess. I was talking about the STAMVADERS.COM page - http://www.stamouers.com/

Not the Project. I have never believed that the English settlers should be on the SV/PROG project - but it doesn't do any harm!

I think it is just not clear and going by what has been said in previous discussions the term Stamvaders is something that usually refers to the Early pre 1795 settlers. I just need it clarified, and I think it would be good to be all working off the same understanding!

Alexander Armenis was defending Mau's refusal to have Black SA progenitors attached to the SV/Prog page. This necessitated him telling us that White English SAs were never on it. I pointed out that my English Progs were on it, giving egs of : Richard William Hulley, PROG and William Howard, PROG (I see both have subsequently been removed.)

I thought then and I still think that what Alexander Armenis said made a lot of sense, separate from the issues that provoked/extracted it!