How far back have you got ?

[Redroger]

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.

[johnxyz]

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.   

[Redroger]

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?

[johnxyz]

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.

[SueByrne]

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.

[Duodecem]

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.

[pinefamily]

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