RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: loo on Thursday 24 May 07 19:30 BST (UK)
-
I am so proud of myself!
No, I didn't just celebrate my 100th birthday.
But I did just tip over the edge of having 100 identified direct ancestors. I now have 102 of them, going back to a gggggggggrandfather born in 1650, who is the most recent one I have learned about.
I can't prove all of them absolutely, but I can prove most of them, and I have reasons to believe they are all correct. I'm expecting to receive 2 or 3 more names in the next couple of weeks.
It has taken 2 years, 2 months and several days, of fairly steady work. And, to think it all started in part because I didn't think I had much family!!
Yippee!
Edited to amend: I'm now up to 105, and probably will have a couple more next week!
-
Wow! Not only 100 ancestors, but an 8xgreat gandfather! Well done!
meles
-
What a sense of achievement, loo!! :)
You can't ever stop, of course. You have to keep on looking - and looking - and looking - for the rest of your life!
MarieC
-
That's amazing, loo :o :o
I've been going for ages and I can only definitely confirm 32 :( Why oh why didn't at least one of my ancestors marry someone who wasn't an agricultural labourer..... ::)
Angela
-
You'll all hate me for this... but I have 275 :o
Probably partly because the number will double each generation and I'm 19.
Andrew
-
Andrew
No, good luck to you!! Just think how much you will have found by your old age!! :o :o :o :o :o :o
MarieC
-
Congratulations loo. Glad you shared with us. It's a great feeling reaching those milestones.
And Andrew, no hating here. Thrilled for you and you give us hope. I do wish I had started at an earlier age, when I would have had more older relatives to question. Although, then I might have ended up with all those family "stories."
Kath
-
I must acknowledge a definite shortage of ag labs, and villages full of people with identical names in my tree, which is a big bonus. They were mostly English tradesmen + Canadian settlers, many of whose roots in the "Old Country" are known, but it took me a while to find the people who knew. I think it helps that they moved around, so that they are easier to identify in the new place as there are not so many of them there.
I have so many surnames now that I can't fit them all onto my profile!
(Bad girl, such bragging!)
I must admit Andrew is the age of my grandson, and i have no hope of ever hitting 200!! But I do think I can get a few more as there is some research I haven't done yet. Congrats, Andrew!
My thanks to everyone here who has helped. JustinL probably didn't know it at the time, but he was absolutely instrumental in my being able to verify the last 14 ancestors, as he led me through a foreign-language site that I couldn't get anywhere with; I'm expecting a few more from that line! ;D
-
Congratulation! By direct ancestors do you mean just on one surname - or do you mean all the ancestors which are genetically yours?
If its the latter then iv got 100 too...well ok 98...
Alison
-
Well done.
I've been at this for a few more years than you 21 to be exact and have now found and proved 494 direct ancestors for my son including one 14x Gt Grand father and mother they married in 1510. Still some elusive ones to uncover though. Much more important is uncovering the stories that give a picture of them and their lives padding out the flesh is a fascinating hunt but of course you first need to know who they were and where they lived and when.
Hope the next few years add to your understanding of the folk that made you I'm still enjoying the chase.
Trees
-
Just to clarify, I meant all the ancestors that are genetically mine - although I have read that there was enough illegitimacy that it's very likely the genetic thread was broken every so often, so that none of us are actually connected to the early ones that we think we are connected to. But that's being pessimistic!
I do have some flesh on me bones, but hoping for more if I can ever get to England to look things up.
Thanks for all your good wishes, and congrats to everyone on their accomplishments! I have been working very hard on this, and trying to get as much as possible as quickly as possible because I want to be able to share it with my parents. It's a bit of a race against time! Dad will be 90 this summer.
-
Hey this is a time for rejoicing not pessimism you are doing a great job.Your post made me start counting, of course we all Find illegitimates along the tree but hopefully not to the extent that the links can no longer be proven. On our longest lines we are lucky that the families stayed in one or two tiny villages which had brilliant church records sadly this isn't always the case so for example one line is well and truly stuck in 1813 :'(
Sometimes you can get round the illegitimates too, My greatest delight was finding the parents of my grand father who grew up in an Edwardian Cottage Homes :) Earlier the parish chest can often give the "father's" name on bastardy records, they are great to find . So thats all waiting for us all to persue and ensures that none of us will ever tire of this great hobby, nor stop rejoicing at the wonderful milestones we achieve.
Trees
-
I was so amazed when using FTM7 and reached 100 and it said would you like to upload to the web now! Since then 9 years have gone by and I now have 13000+ ancestors as I collect every twig and branch in order to go back even further as direct lines usually run out by 1800! Got back to 1600 so far. :D
-
I think it helps that they moved around, so that they are easier to identify in the new place as there are not so many of them there.
Well done Loo,
I will have to go off and count mine now but I know already it won't be that many.
I have one line going back to about 1650 for the opposite reason to you. They "arrived" in one parish and never moved! (Bless their little cotton socks - if they had any). They also chose a parish that kept good records.
Onwards and upwards!
RonnieG
-
Well I have 35 Direct ancestors, as in those that are mentioned in a pedigree (so Father, Grandmothers, 7xGreat Grandmothers etc.). If I include Siblings, Aunties and 5xGreat Grand Uncles the number is increased to around, hmm, well I'm not exactly sure...but if I include everyone in my tree who is blood related (cousins) then the number is around 1300 people. If I include by Marriage the number increases to around 1800 people.
Of course they are all estimates.
-
Well I'm not one to boast ... so I will ... I've got back to my 9X great grandfather in 1530 !! All thanks to a one-name study person who was very helpful !
-
Well done everyone. I'm glad you added they are estimates Jeune-r I thought for a moment you'd invented a new twist to counting sheep for us insomniacs ;D Isn't a little bit of help useful Lydart. I found a funny one this morning:
Thomas FISHER m Joan HINTON 1656 they had daughter Alice and a son Thomas who in turn married and had families but Alice's son married one of Thomas's daughters ie both bride and groom were grand children of Thomas FISHER and Joan nee HINTON now quite a few of my lines have been halved thanks to illegitimacy but now a whole line has disappeared two less names to go searching for a trouble halved can't be a bad thing ;D
Trees
-
Given my Royal links, I could probably go as far back as 1000 years plus.
I just don't because there is no fun in that. The little people are far more interesting.
-
I'd much rather have ag.lab's, miners and a convict than Prince this or that as my ancestors ! MUCH more interesting !
-
I'd much rather have ag.lab's, miners and a convict than Prince this or that as my ancestors ! MUCH more interesting !
I quite agree. And it is easy to say that as that is what I have. :D
Kath
-
Just wanted to stop by and say well done!
What an achievement in two years!
:D
-
Not including my Royal lines, I have 249 direct ancestors listed. That's not bad given that a pair of my greatx2 grandparents were first cousins. I have doublers :P.
-
Its no wonder Windsor87 has royal lines with a name like that !!
-
Excellent - well done.
I'm off to count mine now!
-
Congrats to everyone who starts with(if they are lucky) knowing who are their Grandparents.
My tree and my husband's combined have 3,613 members. These of. course are not all direct ancestors, but all are blood related and are the result from many researchers. The most trusted being those descendants who still live in the same areas and can personally look up BMD from Parish records.
Whilst the GR site can be a pain (often) that is where I have contacted all of these wonderful people.
The earliest we have is my husbands Great(x9) Grandfather Thomas Wingrove 1560 to 1623 and his wife emma grove
I would say that the first couple of years are a) the slowest )b the most satisfying ( achievement wise) and after that hard work /frustrating with lots of hard slog and a developing interest in the social history and just how these people lived out their lives
Spring
-
I found my first couple of years the quickest... I started nearly 3 years ago and after a month or two, I'd got back to GGGG, and GGGG Grandparents. The only limitation was that I didn't find out about the IGI until later, and not all the censuses were available. Ancestry had the 1901, 1891 and 1881 but no 1871 for Yorkshire, although they had Warwickshire so I could do some of my tree at that point. Now things are going quite slowly - pretty much every line that I'm stuck on, I'm stuck on for a reason and perhaps need to go and look at actual parish registers to get further back.
The internet just makes it far easier to do research - you don't have to commit a certain date to go and do something as you can do it whenever you like. It makes it very difficult to do research when you need to go to a different place to research different branches, and you often need more than a day to get everything done. Parish records are lacking online - I really hope someone (probably Ancestry) will transcribe them. The IGI has its limitations: Marriages state if they are widowed or not, and who can write, and this information is omitted. In the case of widowers, it's key information to get further back. Deaths before 1837 are quite sparse, as they're not on the IGI. The NBI is available, but the church burial records often give a cause of death, which can be very important: I found one for my GGGGGG Grandfather who apparently fell down the coal mine in 1805. It would save a lot of hassle if some people transcribed ALL the information in parish registers - It's a lot of effort, I know, but there's no point in people constantly transcribing them and omitting information, as it just means they'll have to be transcribed all over again in the future. FreeReg is a great idea, but people don't really have a lot of spare time on their hands. I think it would be much better if it was lottery funded (or is it already?) so they can at least cover travelling costs for transcribers, or preferably pay them. Anyway, sorry for going off on a tangent :P
Andrew