- They force you to thoroughly document your pedigree, and teach you to look at your family documentation in much more depth.
- They allow an external, uninterested party to approve/"certify" that part of your pedigree.
- Most lineages have been documented by someone other than you before, and you can benefit from this prior documentation. This includes ancestors, and possibly more information on the qualifying ancestor and their descendants leading to you.
There's one more benefit that I'm not as fond of, but it may work for you:
- They can appeal to your vanity.
As you research, also remember not to count out personal genealogies that were written in prior centuries. A genealogy written in 1800, for example, can probably be trusted to adequately document the family one century prior at least, even if it doesn't provide citations, because much of the information probably comes from direct knowledge.
I have one particular branch of my family that is very rich from a lineage point of view. The pedigree starting from my grandfather:
(3) Henry Eugene Stodghill (1928 - 1990) / Adele Ann Pembroke (1930 - 2006)
(4) Henry Eugene Stodghill (1906 - 1993) / Jessie Mae Gibson (1904 - 1972)
(5) Walter S. Stodghill (1871 - 1949) / Pearl Sutton (1880 - 1956)
(6) John Joseph Stodghill (1831- 1912) / Margaret Ellen Thomson (1839 - 1896)
(7) John Preston Thomson (1787 - 1843) / Sarah Sallie Ellis (1797 - 1871)
(8) William Thomson (1759 - 1818) / Frances Quarles (1762 - 1844)
From here I connect to four known lineages depending on whether I follow the Thomson or Quarles family. The Quarles family is simpler, so I'll start with them:
(9) William Quarles (1733 - 1794) / Mary Mills (1743 - 1779)
William Quarles served honorably as a soldier during the American Revolutionary War, as documented by Daughters of the American Revolution.
The Thomson family, on the other hand, provides three other lineages:
(9) William Thomson (1727 - 1778) / Ann Rodes (1734 - 1802)
William Thomson served honorably as a Captain of a Virginia regiment of volunteers during the American Revolutionary War, as documented by Sons of the American Revolution.
Ann Rodes is a descendant of the Emperor Charlemagne, as documented by the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne in the United States. This pedigree alone allows me to stretch my ancestry back along a specific branch to around 742 A.D. (when Charlemagne was born).
A few steps further up the tree:
(10) John Rodes (1697 - 1775) / Mary Crawford (1703 - 1794)
(11) David Crawford II (1662 - 1762) / Elizabeth Smith (1665 - 1767)
Besides he and his wife living to be 100+ years, David Crawford served in the House of Burgesses as documented by the Jamestowne Society.
I'm currently in the process of applying to each of these orders to approve my claims of lineage. My local SAR chapter genealogist has helped me to complete my Sons of the American Revolution application; once that's approved I'll probably move on to the Jamestowne Society.