RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: mwehrle on Tuesday 18 June 24 02:34 BST (UK)
-
My mom has traced our family history back to the late 1600's. I am wondering how far back is realistic? How far back have others gotten? What should be one's expectation? I think it'd be cool to be able to trace one's geneology all the way back to Christ but maybe that's just a pipe dream?
-
For the most part in English records, around the early 1600s is where normal records (such as parish records, start to peter out with some records going back to the late 1500s). Descent from nobility/landowners can be pushed a little further back, but be cautious as there are many false genealogies out there for noble lines (https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Fraudulent_Genealogies )
-
How far back you can go will depend totally on the area your ancestors lived and what records are available.
The further back you go, the less survives, especially for the poor working population
I have some of my lines back to the early 1600s, others I am stuck in the early 1800s. ( all UK)
Going back to Christ -- or even to someone else born in his lifetime -- is not possible. There are no written records of births marriages and deaths from that time period. Anyone who claims to have got back that far is not a serious genealogist and is making up a lot of stuff
-
After nearly 50 years of research, and some help from distant relatives, I am back to 1550 on my direct paternal line, and mid-1500's on 2 maternal lines.
All these lines run out due to lack of parish records from early 1500's.
-
Welcome to Roots Chat.
It all depends upon where you are researching a particular line.
Lancashire got me back to the 1500’s as did Yorkshire.
Cheshire and it is 1805 with a ?
Generally mid 1700’s is going well.
Find a Gateway and it is all the way back to Biblical days (with a huge pinch of salt).
My Wife’s earliest relative in her tree is 450, yes 450 it is not a typo.
Yet my Irish line gets stuck mid 1800’s.
If I may make a suggestion! Expand the tree sideways, generation by generation to about 1800 and bring each line up to as close to present days as possible.
Consider DNA testing of your Mum, one of her siblings and at least one Cousin of hers from each side. She will then have a good base to validate each line via the DNA matches that will be presented.
Just because there are “paper” records does not necessarily mean that they are all accurate. I have two BMD records that are totally in error and that destroys the validity of a specific branch.
-
"I think it'd be cool to be able to trace one's geneology all the way back to Christ"
Why stop there? Why not right the way back to the dawn of the Pleistocene?
-
Back to the pleistocene? That’s when it gets easier!
Given that we all have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents etc., you’ll see that our ancestors at least double with every generation - e.g. you have 1,048,576 GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGgrandparents and that’s only 20 generations! Taking it back to the end of the pleistocene, would give you at least 480 generations and more direct ancestors that you could shake a stick at.
My point - go back far enough and you’re descended from everyone.
-
I thought I had gone as far back as possible with my "Wells" ancestors, but could advance further back with a wife with surname "Dodson" who was a daughter of a "butcher". The "butcher" turned out to have hired a few fields for his stock and , in fact, owned a farm himself, as shown in his Will..
I then realised that I hadn't considered any old fashioned spellings of the surname, and had a "hit" by looking for "Welles". The original "Wells" had been a son of a Norman Baron - a grandson of the famous "William the Conqueror" 1066.
I've not bothered to pursue the line, except for finding an image of their ruined castle on the European mainland.
P.S. Just seen your post RayT which would put anyone off :D I imagine most of the very poor Serfs (unpaid slaves) and their offspring would have died of starvation and illness if they abandoned the land and tried to make their fortune in "London" and other "rich" industrial towns that all had contaminated water..
-
"I think it'd be cool to be able to trace one's geneology all the way back to Christ"
Why stop there? Why not right the way back to the dawn of the Pleistocene?
Funny you should say that.
Take the appropriate mtDNA test and it will give you the route all the way back to Mitochondrial Eve.
-
Back to the pleistocene? That’s when it gets easier!
Given that we all have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents etc., you’ll see that our ancestors at least double with every generation - e.g. you have 1,048,576 GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGgrandparents and that’s only 20 generations! Taking it back to the end of the pleistocene, would give you at least 480 generations and more direct ancestors that you could shake a stick at.
My point - go back far enough and you’re descended from everyone.
Yes
A genealogist once worked out that over 95% of white Europeans have a direct line to King Edward III.
-
It depends on what sort of people they were. For most people - yeoman, carpenter, butcher, etc - you probably won't get back before about 1550. Parish records began in 1538, but for only a relatively small number of parishes. There are muster rolls and tax lists (lay subsidies) in the 1520s and 1540s. Some of these are available online, for example for Buckinghamshire. Some yeomen and husbandmen back to the early 1500s left wills.
For landowners - gentry, knights, squires- there are inquisitions post mortem, legal records, wills, and heralds' visitations, which might get you back to the early 1400s.
If you connect to aristocrats and royals, you could get back to Charlemagne and his ancestors, about the year 600. But there are a lot of bogus genealogies connecting to royalty.
-
Take the appropriate mtDNA test and it will give you the route all the way back to Mitochondrial Eve.
We don't even need a DNA test to say that all of us can trace our lineage back, back, back into the Precambrian ooze.
-
The original question included the word "realistic".
-
I am wondering how far back is realistic?
There's no such thing as realistic expectations. You start searching and you'll see what comes your way. Enjoy the trip instead of focusing on the destination.
I think it'd be cool to be able to trace one's geneology all the way back to Christ but maybe that's just a pipe dream?
It's way cooler to expand laterally. Pay tribute to all the siblings of your direct ancestors by researching them and including them in your tree. Don't reduce your family tree to the 16, 32, etc persons that happen to be your direct lineage. It'll be much more rewarding at the end of the day.
-
I think it'd be cool to be able to trace one's geneology all the way back to Christ but maybe that's just a pipe dream?
First you need an answer to the question "Did Jesus have any children?".
-
I should look for Jesus on the 0020 census. ;)
Joking aside, genealogy does tend to get harder the further back you go but you never know how far back you can go and the 1600s is more than realistic. It depends on their occupation and the availability of records, sometimes if they were very poor in the 1600s and 1700s you may find a plethora of settlement certs and examinations.
-
I should look for Jesus on the 0020 census. ;)
Well, there is the well known census of Judea in AD 1. Indeed "of the whole world'.
-
I'd say 1700s is realistic. I have some back to 1600s. In many cases it wasn't because I ran out of records, but ran out of differentiating information- for example, the birth of John Smith son of John Smith when there are multiple families at the same time in the same place, no mother's names, no occupations, no age on burials etc and no way to tell people apart. A lot of the time it is also easy to assume that someone was born near where they lived and there may be a handy matching christening when for all you know, bio ancestor may have moved quite a distance (one of mine was actually Scottish, as we found out from a note on one of the children's christenings) or may be from a nearby parish without surviving records. My mother has done DNA, which has helped back up the paperwork. I'm thinking I'm back about as far as I'm going to get and it is now a matter of focusing more on fleshing out the people involved where possible, even if in a generic "what did the average person live like at this time? What was going on in Britain while they were alive?" kind of way.
The further back you go, often the more sparse the information becomes on the records and, indeed, the more sparse the records become as it is less and less likely they've survived. You do get pockets of detailed information (thank you, Shute Barrington!) but you can also get writers who, for example, think a woman's surname isn't important on a marriage record because she has her husband's name now or who used old paperwork as a drink coaster.
-
I should look for Jesus on the 0020 census. ;)
Well, there is the well known census of Judea in AD 1. Indeed "of the whole world'.
Good point, good point...
Also pretty sure there's a whole section of the Bible that is so-and-so begat so-and-so begat... Get back to that part and you're golden.
I have seen trees online back to Adam The First Man and I've been impressed by them- not because of the accuracy, obviously, but because someone devoted that much time to making it in the first place. Must have taken ages!
-
Since I typed my response, I decided to enter various BMDs that I've collected over time but hadn't kept up entering them onto my GEDCOM programme.
I deleted my online tree months ago. However, when I opened the gedcom programme whilst my computer was offline, it automatically started to update itself
Then horror of horrors, the darned thing refused to open properly until I went online. I reluctantly obeyed the order but when I entered my email addie and password, the website didn't recognise either of them !!!!
Whilst all this was going on I saw that the date I intended entering had already been entered. I'd duplicated my written notes !
-
I know the feeling of how hard it can be to tell people apart before the census and BMD era. You can get even multiple couples of a rarer surname if it is in a particular area where the surname is more common. For example two John Beesley's wed to spouses called Sarah in the same village in the mid 1700s (for example John Beesley wed Sarah Smith in 1756 and a John Beesley wed Sarah Bloggs in 1762) and you cannot be sure which John and Sarah are the parents of your ancestor, such as "Elizabeth Beesley, daughter of John And Sarah" baptised in 1765. I think in cases like these it may be a case of admitting defeat and you may never know for sure which John and Sarah were your direct ancestors.
You find a baptism in the same area 20 odd years before your namesake ancestor married but have no evidence to show it is the same person, and your constant digging just draws a blank.
-
I think it'd be cool to be able to trace one's geneology all the way back to Christ but maybe that's just a pipe dream?
First you need an answer to the question "Did Jesus have any children?".
Hmmm . . . good question. Literal biological offspring or spiritually begotten? He is referred to as my Elder brother in a blesssing I recieved. What was meant by that designation? Is he literally my elder brother? I suppose that designation could apply to all of us who were born after him. Spiritually speaking, however, I think it could apply to all who have ever lived having both before Christ and after.
-
Only true(-ish) if you're a believer/christian.
I'm not ;)
If you want to make a tree based on fantasy, fable, and legend - go ahead.
-
Trade Unions also use to call their Members by these phrases, such as 'Brothers', but it did not mean blood relative.
----------
Fifty years ago my family tried to trace our male lineage early 1800s and beyond 1800.
A book written by a Wesleyan (19th Cent in that town) about the town, stated they kept no early records.
Sarah, one of my known family is one of those listed as having a Freehold house in the book.
The Presbyterian records in that town do not survive for a 100 year period from 1690.
No records make it impossible to check for any possible relatives.
Older burial Registers don't have burial ages.
Only a few people can get back to 1550 with baptisms, marriages, burials and supporting documents.
If old Landowner or Manor records can be found and looked at, only principal Tenants are listed, so anyone else who worked for the Tenant are not mentioned.
Catholics never kept all their records.
A few Trees seem to have errors even when Census and BMD Certificates are available.
Also no Legal obligation England & Wales to Register a Birth until the 1870s.
Some published and printed (in the 19th Cent) family histories have been challenged by another:-
For example The Coburn Family and another book about The Coburn-Hood Family.
On my Richardson family, a Rootschatter found 2 Wills and we ended up with 6 Wills for the Richardsons and a parallel line by Marriage to them, to get the correct baptism and marriage line, just to get back to the 1740s.
But not all people left a Will.
-
I believe that the Jewish community has fairly extensive records going back many decades, if not centuries, before the 1600s. There was an article I read many years ago that claimed that there was a woman who was living in Israel who could trace her family back 2,300 years because the rabbinical records were so good.
It's known that the people in many European Jewish communities were almost 100% literate (women included) throughout the Middle Ages, so this is possible. Perhaps if you have Jewish ancestry you might contact the local synagogue or Jewish Museum for some guidance.
-
I am probably younger than most here but I can't understand why people seem so obsessed with getting as far back as possible. it is much more interesting contacting living relatives. Also it is generally accepted that one to two percent of births are not recorded correctly because the mother doesn't know the father. People seem so dubious about DNA, yet if you weren't at the conception and birth you can't really be sure without relying on DNA.
Jessi
-
I guess it depends upon what you are looking for.
Many of the queries in this site come from people who are looking for missing ancestors, unexplained anomalies in their family history, or information that will explain why things happened in their families. For many of us, it's just totally absorbing to find out more about the past.
-
I do contact living relatives here and there (matching with them on Anc etc) but usually only so we can discuss mutual confusion or to get more information, I don't actually want a cousin relationship with them. I'm not a fan of people in general, to be honest. Most of my ancestors are too dead to be bothered by me poking around in their private records, asking awkward questions, making possibly insulting theories etc... Most of what I've enjoyed about family history is the detective work and the exhilaration of solving something or getting a solid theory. Getting "as far back as possible" for me is how successful one can get on a line that you can prove to some extent. There's a difference between getting far back with evidence and getting far back with name collecting. I think I've had as much success as I'm going to with the paper records (although happy to be proven wrong!) but DNA has some potential to link me up in certain areas. I think I have a solid chance of narrowing down the unknown father of one illegitimate ancestor through DNA, that's far more interesting to me than finding living relatives.