RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Tearose on Wednesday 19 October 11 12:48 BST (UK)
-
I expect that this has been asked several times before, but I am curious to know how far back have actually got with there searching (in years I mean) ??
:)
-
The earliest document I have is a bastardy order dated 02.02.1771 regarding the birth of my Great Great Great Grandfather who was born on 06.01.1771. That refers to his father and also names his Grandfather, so allowing about 20 years per generation I have information back to about 1730.
I've also found the probable baptism of the mother referred to in the bastardy order on Family Search dated 10.02.1749.
I must say though, I find details of my family in London in the Victorian era most interesting as there is more information available to put 'flesh on the bones'.
How far have you got Tearose?
Heather
-
Wow not as far as you, but I'm working on it ... Lol
I've got back to about 1850, but going strong at the moment, I'm hooked ;D
-
Fascinating isn't it? Whereabouts in London were your families? All my branches seem to have stayed north of the Thames but from Chelsea, Islington, Hackney and Tower Hamlets.
Heather
-
Mainly Islington but surrounding area's also.
I started off just tracing my dad's side but now mum wants her side traced as well, I think she thinks I'll have it done in a couple of months !! Bless, if only she new ;)
-
My lines are very variable - the least productive is my Irish grandfather, first spotted for sure at his wedding in 1914, and possibly on 1901 census.
My best lines go back to about 1720, and I even know what one of my 5x g grandfathers looked like - apparently he wore a tricorn hat and had a pony tail! (Recorded in the records of the Huguenot Church in London). One of my 4xg grandmothers owned a bedspread with a stain on it; well, she did until someone stole it from the washing line and ended up at the Old Bailey for his trouble :D
My big hope is to get back to a dateable event in 17th century, but on the whole, I prefer the "meat on the bones" stuff rather than a list of names and dates.
Red Post - Tearose, Tell your mum I've been doing family history, on and off, for 25 years and I'm still finding new things on my direct line - it never finishes! ;D
-
I have got back to the marriage of my 8th great grandfather 19th July 1624.
Stan
-
I have a lease in the records of Repton Priory that dates to 1610.
Of course Poo-Bah, The Lord High everything in the Mikado, could trace his ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule.
Rog
-
1678 7XG grandfather John Tweedie and wife Jean Wilson for definate.Another earlier to that is a probable at the moment.Then again there are some I am struggling to get past the early 1800s.
-
I've got back to 1100s with one branch of the family (my 25 x g.grandparents) because my 9 x g.grandfather married into the gentry, so easy to find records for them, I have wills, copies of Chancery Court documents etc, etc. which made the search relatively easy.
However, I'd much rather find where my g.grandfather came from who was born about 1857/60 in Bethnal Green, he's a much closer ancestor than a 25 x g.grandfather. ::)
-
When people ask me this question I always like to reply - 1058
I have been very lucky with my name, as there were several hundred years of ownership of country estates in Derbyshire and Yorkshire. So far so good, the tree I have assembled back to the 15th century, from many resources is, I believe, as accurate as I can make it.
But others have gone much further back, though unfortunately there are gaps, obvious inaccuracies and just plain made up bits.
But is is fun to watch people's faces when I say 1058.
-
Suspect I may be taking the trophy here ;D -- one of my (distant) relatives (William Hughes, Inner Temple Barrrister, born 1801) claimed descent from Rhodri Mawr, King of Wales, died 847 AD!! This was through the illegitimate line of course -- so much more titillating to Victorian sensibilities! He attaches himself to something called the Huges of Gwerclas pedigree, and I am presently unclear when this was "concocted" and how reliable it is -- have barely begun to research it. Suspect this attachment was just a way of making himself appear more "top drawer" than he actually was when working in a profession where social standing was extremely important.
Ultimately, I agree strongly with previous posters -- it's not about 'how far back'; it's the stories and the flesh on the bones that really make ancestor-hunting interesting!
CELTIC ANNIE
-
My earliest record is from 778, from Louis I "The Pious Emperor" of the Carolingian empire(30+ something-greats).
It's much easier to find records on that side of the family, where they were of royal blood.
On the other side, however, I can't even find my great grandparents.
-
1538 - one of my ancestors was considerate enough to be born in the year that PRs started.
-
Anthony (Antonie) Frauncis, bapt in Grantham 1581 and m Elyn Marshaw in 1609. Anthony's father was Robert - i haven't found his baptism.
But as others have said, it's more satisfying to be able to find out lives rather than just the names of ancestors. I don't even know what Antonie did to keep his family. It's not until the late 1700s that I can start to put flesh on the bones of this line., with trade directories etc.
-
Wow amazing - I know what you all say about not just finding dates out but finding "the meat on the bone", I suppose I was also wondering if you really could get that far back.
I have found no juicy bits really as yet, only that my g grandfather fell down the cellar steps in his local (he liked his liquor), and obviously bumped his head, and it was not until 3 days later that he was found dead. His wife (g grandmother) was so distraught, and after so long actually put her head in her gas oven and committed suicide, as she could not live without him.
The only bit I have is on the same line, with his mother being robbed of a pair of sewing scissors but a 16 year old girl and as punishment was shipped off over to Australia.
Happy researching x
-
The furthest I've got back is on my Wood ancestors - 1515, in Therfield, Herts.
Unfortunately on my surname line, I'm struggling to get back beyond 1805 :-[
-
I've been very lucky and very UNlucky.
Two lines I have for definite back to the late 1500's. They just happened to come from places that have very well preserved and recorded records.
another line, I've got stuck on my G g grandfather, b.1850.
My Dad's surname, Porrett, was very easy to trace back to the 1850's, but there are almost exlusively williams and george's in the families previous to then so untangling them is proving quite difficult, and all the wives seem to appear out of thin air!
definitely is interesting, I've found myself doing it for my boyfriend (his is v interesting as they're Barons and Admirals and things), friends, and even two random customers my dad had in his garage!
Should probably start charging.. :p
-
I have leaped back a few generations on my Snell line. Thirza Snell born in 1853 in Marsh Baldon, Oxfordshire to John Snell born about 1660 in Gloucestershire. He had a son Charles in Meyseyhampton, Gloucs who had William born 1726 in Buckland, berks, who had William born 1750 in Brightwell, Berks to Richard born 1788 in Marsh Baldon, to William born 1820 in Marsh Baldon to Thirza born 1853 who wed in Oxford in 1878.
-
My earliest documented ancestor is one named Thomas recorded birth 1514, with baptism 1542 and death in 1556 at Calverley Parish Church.
Parents names unknown and still looking?
Brian
-
HeatherLynne & Tearose and anyone with London interests.
This of course may already be known to you but a website named-----
"London Gazette" has given me many snippets regarding some of my Middlesex/London ancestors. poli
p.s one of my families always seemed to be appearing in the paper regarding bankruptcy !!
-
Thanks for that Polidor, yes I've got bankrupts in the London Gazette in my family too! It also has details of people in other locations - for example my ancestors in Portsea, Portsmouth. As it's a free resource it's definitely worth doing a few searches, never know what interesting snippets might turn up ;D
Thanks for reminding me about that site, it's been a while since I looked on there, probably got some new family names to try in the search box :)
Heather
-
Thats the easy bit. Adam and Eve because we are all descended from them. It's establishing the links which are difficult.
I am having difficulty in establishing whether Petronius Probus Roman Consul in 322 was the son of Anicius Faustus Paulinus Preatorian, Prefect of Lower Moesia in 230 and his wife Sextia Cocceia, or of Sextus Cocceious Vibianius a senator in 204 and his wife Anicia Fausta
-
Well like most on here, my lines vary between the 1800's (the problem ones!), and the 1500's. I have a will dated 1585 for John Dowdeswell of Temple Guiting, and I have records from 1530 for John Pyne of Ottery St Mary when he purchased a property in Exminster.
I agree also that to find the "meat for the bones" is much more interesting; but there is still that eureka moment when you find that elusive connection, or that new ancestor. You can't beat it.
On my wife's side, I have been fortunate enough to make connections into the gentry, and from there, up the social scale. However, I try to stay in the realms of provable fact, and don't try and go past the 14 or 1500's. It is a fact that a lot of the pedigrees of the noble and gentry classes are a blend of fact and fiction.
With London ancestors, it seems easier to put the meat on now more than ever, what with sites like London Lives and ancestry's LMA parishes.
-
I have just tried to register with London Lives but it refuses to recognise my email address is legitimate.
My email addy is a very simple one, just my name and ISP dot com.
Tried twice, checked it very carefully, very disappointed as I think this looks like an interesting database.
-
With the help of a book called The Quesnes of Jersey which contains all the family trees I ve probably gone back to 1400s but this is other peoples research.Again with maternal line in Jersey I have gone back to about the same time with the help of a web site called Jerripedia.
Again with the Roe family in Leicestershire at least to 1500s with the help of another researcher but I havent gone myself to the record office to check .
Its not a case of how far back you can go ----what is frustrating is when you come to a brick wall in the mid 1800s and also researching the family in 20th century is hard.
Ringrose
-
However, I try to stay in the realms of provable fact, and don't try and go past the 14 or 1500's. It is a fact that a lot of the pedigrees of the noble and gentry classes are a blend of fact and fiction.
This is true of many pedigrees from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as well. In fact probably 70% of the trees on ancestry suffer from imaginative links for which there is no proof. It doesn't matter how far back you are working the rule of three primary sources of proof must be applied. The most useful proof prior to 1800 is often property ownership or occupation.
Referring to a specific 17th century pedigree for the Edlin family which is used by a whole USA dynasty to show their descent from English gentry, the crucial link can be shown by reference to wills and property records to be through a bachelor who never married and had no progeny.
You can never rely on other peoples trees and pedigrees. You must establish the proof yourself.
-
egzackery, behindthefrogs. To rely on purely PR's and BT's pre-1837 can lead to many errors being made, although by going back to the original source (rather than a transcription) you can make a reasonable amount of headway. In the original registers you will often find extra pieces of information that either prove John Smth was your ancestor, or rule him out.
I have found wills to be the best source of proof of ID, closely followed by property documents. It is so handy when the same property stays in the family for generations. :)
-
On my wife's side, I have been fortunate enough to make connections into the gentry, and from there, up the social scale. However, I try to stay in the realms of provable fact, and don't try and go past the 14 or 1500's. It is a fact that a lot of the pedigrees of the noble and gentry classes are a blend of fact and fiction.
Certainly many of the published pedigrees for the minor gentry have some very dubious, if not blatantly dishonest links (but of course you'd never just accept a published pedigree anyway would you!). However in general it is much easier to prove the links between 15th century gentry than between 18th and early 19th century Ag Labs. Its all about how much paperwork they left in their wake.
-
That's what I have done with my wife's lines. I have found the existing pedigrees, and then checked each link for myself. Interestingly, there have been on or two discrepancies.
Mind you, who would have thought that there would be an error in the online DNB?
-
On my one venture to the nearest relevant county Records Office (all of 10 miles away) I managed to go back to a birth circa 1722.
Haven't got round to a second visit though as I don't feel much incentive to put that kind of leg-work in when all I end up with is a list of people about whom I know no more than that they were born, married, procreated and died.
All the indications are that I am descended from a group of families who have studiously avoided acquiring property or money or exercising any kind of influence whatsoever.
I am well on my way to continuing that proud tradition!
-
Considering all my ancestors were poor farm labourers I'm quite pleased that I've managed to trace one of my paternal lines back to the marriage of my 12 x Gt Grandparents in 1541. For my surname line I've got back as far as my 7 x Gt Grandfather who was born around 1690.
-
I am afraid I lose interest when there are not many records to prove anything, so I tend to go forward in the hope of meeting more family ALIVE!!
Dora
-
On my one venture to the nearest relevant county Records Office (all of 10 miles away) I managed to go back to a birth circa 1722.
Haven't got round to a second visit though as I don't feel much incentive to put that kind of leg-work in when all I end up with is a list of people about whom I know no more than that they were born, married, procreated and died.
All the indications are that I am descended from a group of families who have studiously avoided acquiring property or money or exercising any kind of influence whatsoever.
I am well on my way to continuing that proud tradition!
What did you look at in the record office? If you restricted yourself to the parish registers then of course all you will find is baptisms marriages and burials. However if you can find other documents from the parish chest there is a lot more information to be found for all levels of the community. Moving from there to the manor records, and higher church records etc. reveals a lot more information. This sort of research is a lot slower but very rewarding because you are doing real research.
-
What did you look at in the record office? If you restricted yourself to the parish registers then of course all you will find is baptisms marriages and burials. However if you can find other documents from the parish chest there is a lot more information to be found for all levels of the community. Moving from there to the manor records, and higher church records etc. reveals a lot more information. This sort of research is a lot slower but very rewarding because you are doing real research.
Fair comment - I admit I was being a bit facetious.
As with colin buckle's comment above, most of my ancestors were also farm labourers; and most of those were unable to sign their own marriage certs by the start of the 20th century so I suspect they will have left little trace (possibly applications for parish relief or the like). In truth, having recently rediscovered my enthusiasm for the hunt, I certainly intend to see what I can come up with.
Ian
-
The parish records can reveal a lot more about your ancestors than just an involvement in poor relief. This can vary between being paid for work done in the parish to being involved issues brought before the vestry. These small items can often reveal relationships which you are otherwise unable to find.
-
Much depends on the survival of records, both in the direct line and connections, for example, the likely ancestors of my 3XGGM are documented in Manorial records back to around 1300. Only problem is I can't for certain prove that she is my 3XGGM in 1776.
-
My best find is a signature of my paternal 11g grandfather on a lease dated 1607. That turned up because I the staff in a small archive said "we have this box of un-catalogued documents from that family, would you like to look through it "!
That lease is part pf an evidential trail linking back to a heraldic pedigree in which the family is said to "descend from Adam de Copley slain at York in 1070". But wherever it's quoted, no-one ever gives proper sources. As I started digging it became more and more likely that the early part (before 1434) is an Elizabethan invention, though the later part is solid. Part of the fun has been trying to trace when and where the myth was first created, and some of the early references to its likely spurious nature.
It's interesting within this line to see the descent from Knight, through "gent" and "yeoman" to ag lab over about 7 generations, and to note that despite that descent down the social scale the groom always signed at marriage.
I am also fortunate that in the 1920s someone did some proper research, and there are published 2 articles, with all sources quoted, that trace back to the first recorded use of the family name circa 1230.
-
Johnxyz, Is a Y chromsome DNA test an option to prove or disprove the early Copley links? Or is part of the early tree through the female line?
-
It might, but the problem is that almost everone who claims the early pedigree before 1434 is descended from Sir Richard Copley who died 1434. The data is good back to that point - I have primary sources for each step.
-
Only just started so have only got as far back as 1855 with any certainty. Becoming a bit of a challenge due to Irish roots.
-
The earliest I've managed is a birth in 1655. I know nothing about the family apart from names and the village where they lived,except that the baby's mother was a widow by the time he was born. You can only imagine how hard that must have been.
Like previous contributors my family seem to have mainly been labourers and fishermen with no wills or property, but on my mother's side they didn't move further than the next village which makes searching much easier.
It's quite exciting when you can go back through the generations, but probably more satisfying when you find a real tangle and have to unravel it all.
-
As mentioned on here before, it's not always about how far you get back, as opposed to how much you can find out about your ancestors. Still, it is satisfying to find that ancestor who lived in the 1600's. I find it more of a challenge to find out details about the earlier ones, and have been relatively successful thus far.
Darren