RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: tab11 on Sunday 13 March 05 10:58 GMT (UK)
-
I would be interested to know how far back people have managed to get with
their ancestry and how difficult it eventually becomes.
My earliest date is about 1754 but I am sure some genealogists have done a
lot better than that. Would love to hear their news.
Look forward to hearing from you
tab11 :o
-
Hi Tab11
I have only got back as far as about 1800 to 1830 and constantly hitting brick walls in all directions.
Parents who in the Census have changed their mind where they where born, as well as their ages. Children with ages swapped around together with their place of birth. Not surprising with big families!
Others who started to use their middle name because a cousin lived next door with the same name.
Very little found in the way of birth/baptism/marriage records.
On the plus side I have found clues from elderly widowed mothers living with family and in other cases an assortment of other children farmed out around relatives.
I am guessing that with most being agricultural labourers and having large families, they where more concerned with working and feeding hungry mouths than worrying to much about records.
Linda
-
I got back to the mid 17th century on a couple of lines, but only because somebody local had already done the research. It does depend a lot on whether you live in the area where your research is, and on whether the records actually exist. If one's ancestors were humble folk it's often more difficult. There's a lot of luck involved!
-
I have back to 1625 on one line mainly due to my ggrandfather, grandfather and uncle on my father's side doing earlier research. That and the fortuitousness of them coming from Wirksworth, Derbyshire which has a fantastic website. So I agree with suttontrust, lot of luck involved. Regards ;) Jan
-
Hi Tab11
I'm back to the 1600s on a few lines (1603 my best) but on some others I haven't got far back at all. My main line (the Tymon family) I have only just got into the 18th Century.
Good luck in your searches.
Best wishes
Ticker
-
My earliest date on my mother's side is a marriage in Bridgnorth in 1591 - their parish records are great, and this line were considerate enough to stay in one place for generations! On my father's side, I've nothing reliable before the early 1800's. But my husband's Swiss ancestors go back to 1400 on several lines - sickening, isn't it?
??? ;D ???
MR
-
Wow! :D
-
thanks to the wonderful Dorset OPC site I managed to go back from 1906 to 1729 yesterday on my grandmother's mother's side, but have hit a brick wall with my 9g grandparents and 10g grandparents - either both men, both named samuel, both married a Mary or there is something a bit odd!
My husband is related to the Wedgewoods of pottery fame, and their tree has been researched and goes back to the Norman conquest (although i haven't checked it for sources etc to see how objectively and accurately its been researched!)
I must say i felt pretty chuffed yesterday - but as i say its all thanks to that wonderful website. If only all counties were as well served.
Sue
-
This smacks of boasting, but "pour encourager les autres":
cir 1550 on one line that I have researched myself and therefore pretty convincing as far as I am concerned.
cir 1560 on my husband's paternal line, researched by someone else, but so far it all seems to fit together very well.
cir 1100 on my paternal grandmother's line, but only because it links to several armigerous Sussex families who are well documented.
Others are resolutely stuck in the 18th century!
So keep going everyone! They are all interesting in their own way. ;)
Nell
-
Congratulations Little Nell!
That really is impressive. Perhaps you can give us some tips.
tab
-
Tab, I was just reading all your previous posts and noticed you asked how far people have gotten back..I have got to before the year 400 on my dad's line, and not to brag but that is b/c he was descended from royalty. If you are lucky enough to hit royalty, they have always had their own pro genealogists so all of the work is laid out for you.
Very cool, however you always have to wonder about what I call the "mailman factor"
(illegitimacy).......which is why I am now more interested in my pure maternal line.
-
1550 ish on one line; many thanks to the good burghers of Grantham who kept meticulous records and had legible handwriting :)
-
::), It seems as if I am bragging but I have got back to 1580 amd 1603 on 2 sides of my husbands paternal line. Brilliant records for Inveresk, Midlothian ;D and I suppose I struck it lucky
Lynda
-
1532 Nicholas Duxbury
1591 Jenkin Bulcock
1670 James Myerscough
1695 John Heyworth son of Nicolas born ? ( my latest brick wall)
Good luck tab 11. The research can be very addictive and very very frustrating :D
-
Well on the Flood side, I do like to make reference to the book of Genesis, and I can indeed trace the line back to Noah - but that is Noah Flood born c1775 in Exeter ;D. One branch I have got back to the 1590s, but on others I'm still stuck in the 19th century.
Robert
-
Very good Robbo! I remember barely being able to hold in my laughter at a teenager at a Mormon FHCtr who was (in all seriousness) telling his friends that his grandmother had traced their line back to Adam.
As an American with ancestors who arrived from UK and Europe (primarily England and Scotland) between early 1600s and mid 1800s, I am quite jealous of all of those who can trace their lines with relative ease through parish records. If your ancestors arrived in North America in the 1600s or 1700s, and weren't well-to-do, it is increasingly difficult to trace where they came from. Consequently, except for my "later arrivals", I'm mostly stuck at about 1800.
Nick
-
I remember barely being able to hold in my laughter at a teenager at a Mormon FHCtr who was (in all seriousness) telling his friends that his grandmother had traced their line back to Adam.
Nick
Thinking along those lines, the Royal Family rather dubiously trace their ancestry back to Alfred the Great and the Kings of Wessex, who claimed descent from Woden - which would make the head of the Church of England the descendant of a pagan god. ;D ;D
Robert
-
The OH's family is fully documented back to 1584, I think I can make a further generation back but I just need firm proof.
Firm proof is what I'd like to see in a descent from Adam as well! ;D
Carole
-
I'm descended from a long line of bastards!
19 x great-grandfather = John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. I get there through his daughter Joan Beaufort, illegitimate daughter although later legitimised, of Kathryn Swynford.
26 x great-grandfather = William the Conqueror, illegitimate son of the Duke of Normandy and a tanner's daughter.
There's a few Kings of England between those two and there's an awful lot of Ag. Lab's. and miners, as well as a few more famous names, between them and me! Some were legitimate.
I don't take credit for all the work between me and John of Gaunt and I hope the historians got the rest right!
Jill
-
Robbo, love that irony about the head of the church being descended from a pagan god!
Nick, I find the same thing about my American ancestors from 1700-1900. They seemed to have moved around a lot (probably to find work) and if they were poor, not church-goers, and divorced/remarried or widowed early........well I'm just SOL.
Funniest story I have is, I own a photo of a female relative taken around 1860 and on the back she wrote, "Guess who"? Little did she know I'd still be guessing 150 years later!
-
The earliest ancestor of mine is on my maternal line of Oxlade and the date there is 1538 in Buckinghamshire
on the paternal line Tabor the best we can ascertain is 1722 in Wiltshire
the 1538 date is firm and so is the 1722
Parliament on one and Royalist the other
Alf
-
At this moment 3 of us are on-line on this thread alone, representing 3 continents: US (me), Australia (JillJ) and England (robbo43) - I think I have found a home on-line since my real friends are quite sick of me rattling on about genealogy!
-
Welcome Flourgurl, unlikely that anyone here is going to get sick of you rattling on about genealogy. And they are all knowledgeable, friendly & helpful (except me, I'm a miserable old grouch).
Robert
-
So you're telling me not to trust the Royal Genealogists? Ah, I feel like I've just been stabbed. Whom CAN we trust?
-
I'm descended from a long line of bastards!
19 x great-grandfather = John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. I get there through his daughter Joan Beaufort, illegitimate daughter although later legitimised, of Kathryn Swynford.
26 x great-grandfather = William the Conqueror, illegitimate son of the Duke of Normandy and a tanner's daughter.
There's a few Kings of England between those two and there's an awful lot of Ag. Lab's. and miners, as well as a few more famous names, between them and me! Some were legitimate.
I don't take credit for all the work between me and John of Gaunt and I hope the historians got the rest right!
Jill
You and I must be related Jill as John of Gaunt was my 19 or 20 X great-grandfather as well. My 2x great grandfather about the early 1800s was mad keen on genealogy, and he knew he was descended somehow from a person called Sir Dudley Digges, buried in the church at Chilham in Kent, who claimed on his tombstone to be descended from the 4 sons of Edward III, John of Gaunt being one of those. He did prove the link and had it written up.
Other lines I can get back into early 1700s, but one cannot get back before 1820.
Ian C
-
I'm not, as far as I know, descended from John of Gaunt, but I do have one line which was in dispute with him for decades, leading to at least two murders (supporters of Gaunt killed by my ancestors, the Stathams of Morley, Derbyshire).
More recent members of the same family were descended from King John via an illegitmate child of his second son Richard. Obviously once you make a connection to royalty, your ancestry suddenly stretches back well into the first millenium, but personally I tend not to put too much effort into studying such well trodden lines - I prefer to concentrate my efforts on lines which feel a little more personal, and from which I can get the enjoyment of discovering the links for myself.
-
Welcome to RootsChat Flourgirl - but since when did Lincolnshire become part of Oz? I wish!!
Ian, I'm sure we are related but I'm not at all sure we should attempt to find out how! I think most of the population of England are probably related to him if they but knew it!
One thing I will say about getting back to medieval times is that it's a great history lesson. If you are lucky enough to get back to 'the nobility' there is usually quite a lot written about them which makes them much easier to trace. The hard part is connecting to them in the first place!
Good luck to you all.
Jill
-
Thanks for the welcome Jill - i must've been looking at someone else's profile to think you were from Oz.
You expressed my sentiments exactly about the history lesson in going back to medieval times. I've got books on my shelf I never dreamed I would have and learned so much about European history as a sideline of roots work.
I'm supposedly descended from William the Conqueror, too, and King John, which I thought was cool til I watched "The Lion in Winter" and realized he was the least capable son!
-
I have several lines back to births around 1600 but haven't been able to pin them down definitely in baptism records. Then I have one person whom I am pretty certain is the grandfather of one of the c1600 births but there is a missing bl***y link! They were in a very rural area and didn't move around very much so I am fairly sure that if I ever find the father, all will fall into place. But it's a big if.
Jen
-
Earliest date on my tree is the death of my 10th great grandfather on my father's side on the 2nd October 1589. Not researched by me though. This was researched by a cousin from some manorial records written in Latin - way beyond me. I hated latin at school :(
-
I can go back to c1585 - William Colledge, but that was researched by someone else. Early 1600s on a few lines that my mum researched. On my dad's side I can go back to Thomas Tattersfield 1633. Male line I can go back to the 1780s in Saddleworth until it gets tricky (a few possible births), and 1750s for my female line, which goes back to Retford.
Andrew