Round and round

After studying a recent news story concerning Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota, his identify instantly caught my consideration. I do know two different males named Mike Rounds, and we’re all distant cousins by means of our descent from John Spherical (ca. 1645-1716) of Swansea and Rehoboth, Massachusetts.

Descendants of John Spherical are handled within the 1983 work by H. L. Peter Rounds, The John Round Family of Swansea and Rehoboth, Massachusetts, which received the Donald Lines Jacobus award the next 12 months. The South Dakota State Historical Society had printed a partial ancestor table of the Senator a number of years in the past, figuring out him as an eleventh-generation descendant of the primary John Spherical. There are some errors on the ancestor desk, so check with the chart and sources under, however the desk serves as an excellent begin.[1]

The Senator and I share the primary three American generations, each descended from Jabez3 and Renew (Carpenter) Spherical, making us seventh cousins twice eliminated. Renew is the supply of my Mayflower descent from John, Elinor, and Francis Billington, so Senator Rounds can also be a descendant of Plymouth Colony’s first English man executed for murder! How the identify Renew was continued on this household can also be attention-grabbing, which I’ll proceed in one other publish. Whereas my nearer Spherical kinship is thru my mom, my father additionally descends from John Spherical, which I believe makes me well-rounded!

As all of the people within the seventeenth and eighteenth century have the surname Spherical, you may marvel why the Senator, the opposite two Mikes I do know, and the genealogist Peter Rounds all have the surname Rounds right now. For this I’ll refer the next paragraph within the introduction of the 1983 Spherical family tree:

A particular phrase ought to be dedicated to the ultimate “s” which is usually added to the Spherical identify. The compiler has discovered a lot of cases the place descendants have debated which type is “proper”: with the “s” or with out the “s.” The compiler feels that is usually a debate not price waging, because it has no easy resolution. From the very earliest look in America of John1 Spherical in 1689, the identify bore no ultimate “s.” This was the case right through the 1700’s, with solely an occasional occasion when the “s” was added. Then, within the early 1800’s, it began displaying up increasingly more usually, sooner in some areas than in others. Nonetheless, generally, there was just about no sample. It has turn into apparent to the compiler, having pored over a whole bunch of outdated, unique paperwork, that the addition of an “s” happened largely by default. It was imposed upon them. Time and again it has been discovered that clerks, muster masters, census enumerators, attorneys and others had been those who first wrote it with an “s.” The individual himself, if he may wrote, signed with out the “s.” However as they moved into the 1800’s, the “s” was imposed upon them increasingly more. So the Spherical relations themselves, one after the other, began utilizing it. Some traces of the household held out longer than others, however most ultimately yielded. Lastly, arriving within the modern age, it appeared that each one branches of the household had been unanimous in utilizing the ultimate “s.” Nonetheless, the session of 1982 phone directories from across the nation proved there are nonetheless some geographical areas and a few traces of the household the place the absence of the ultimate “s” is fastidiously adopted. Although all historic cases left the “s” off, most modern-day descendants use it. There is no such thing as a “proper” or “improper” method.  

The change within the Senator’s line seems in technology six. Sylvester, Jr. was born in Rehoboth in 1788 with out the s. His marriage at Rehoboth in 1811 is likewise with out the s, though the marriage intention at Dighton, Massachusetts has it. The s is inscribed on his gravestone in 1849, and the plural spelling is utilized by all later generations.

The imposition of the “s” is one thing that I’ve a substantial amount of sympathy for concerning my very own surname. Many branches of the Youngster household likewise have had the “s” added over time and I even get Christmas playing cards right now from a few of my kin writing my surname as Childs! I’ve kind of gotten used to it (aside from after I miss an e-mail!), though I bear in mind steadily as a baby my father all the time spelling our surname to others to make sure they’d not get it improper, usually to no avail! All 4 years in highschool, my report card all the time got here addressed to me as “Christopher C. Youngster,” and my dad and mom listed as “Mr. and Mrs. William C. Childs”!

Sources for chart: Rounds, John Spherical Household, 11-16, 19-27, 52-57, 131-38, 218-94; 1841 Livingston Co., Michigan Marriage Record of Jabez C. Rounds and Mahitta Walker; 1870 Census, Marion, Clayton, Iowa, Jabez C. Rounds household; 1896 Iowa Birth Certificate of Marion Mather Rounds; 1914 South Dakota Marriage Record of Marion Mather Rounds and Mary Josephine Engabus; World War II Draft Card of Donald Dean Rounds; 2018 Obituary of Don Rounds; GSMD Software of Christopher Challender Youngster, no. 82877 (proven here starting with maternal grandparents); “Seeing double” (with a particular thanks for the remark by Kay Schmidt, correcting my descent from Obadiah and Katherine [Hyde] Holmes).


[1] For a dialogue on the fictional John Spherical of Yarmouth, Mass., erroneously said in earlier works as the daddy of John Spherical of Swansea and Rehoboth, see Robert S. Wakefield, “Round Family – Fact or Fiction,” The American Genealogist 54 [1978]: 37-38.