General Chat

I have just seen a post on the success board by someone who has been researching for about 12 months. She has traced her family back to 1048. So why am I still stuck in quite a few cases in the early 1800's is this because I am useless or just totally incompetent. I could move on if I just picked a name at random but until I can PROVE that a reletive belongs to me I just have to keep my brick walls. Have you all moved on a few centuries also and if you have HOW DID YOU DO IT PLEASE. Pat

I'm stuck at c1780 for over a year cant find the b***** anywhere paid for FHS searches even they cant find him

Hello, I am like you.....been doing family history (off and on) for about 10 years and no where near that......unless I have proof it doesn't mean anything to me..... I just want to be sure that the person I find IS my ancestor.....much harder I know and far more time consuming but at least I know what I have is right. Sal x

I know it's selfish but thank God I'm not the only one. Pat

Exactly the same thought crossed through my mind earlier actually when reading a thread..... I am at the stage of having to get the church records to go anywhere anymore and that is much harder from Australia.... Should have done more before emigrating but not to worry, can't be helped now hey!

Hi I think there are many different types of geneologists. Some do it properly to the end getting all certs & proving everything as they go along. The other extreme is someone who guesses as they go along & build their tree on probability. The majority of us are somewhere in between! On the success board Clive/Tracey does say he has royal connection so if that fact is proved most of the royal family trees go back centuries anyway so it wouldn't be too difficult to get back that far. Enjoy finding your history that suits you best. Penny

A lot of people seem to think that if someone has got back 100s of years they have done it in a hurry and it isn't a thoroughly researched tree. But if you connect to landed gentry or above it's actually quite easy because the genealogies are already in existence - the chap on Success said he had a royal connection so it's quite likely his tree is completely valid. I've got a few lines that I can trace back to the early 1600s - mostly because I've spent hours at the records office going through parish records, burial indexes, wills, county marriages indexes and so on. If a family was in a small area with a not so common surname and a variation of christian names it can be fairly straightforward. Having said that on some lines I'm stuck in the 1850s-1880s where I have unregistered births and no marriages:))

I expect that there would come a time where you have to take a good guess if nothing at all is available, and just see what else adds up....then make your decision... Until then I really love to get all the information that I can as I think that it makes it so much more interesting to see the certs and censuses etc....I like to get as much info to get a better picture of the peeps.

David - Yes, you are right when you say about them living in a small village.....my one branch is back to 1640 purely by luck as they lived in the small village of Cumnor and didn't move....the records in the church safe was like a gold mine when I visited and the lovely Vicars' wife opened it up for me!!! You do need some easier branches to make up for those ellusive ones!!!!!

Thank you everyone for your comments and some very valid points. Yes I can see that belonging to gentry or Royalty would take you back a lot further than the average family. However I will have you know that I come from very good stock as I have found one of my ancestors was a rag and bone dealer now you can't get better than that LOL.. In the meantime I will keep plodding on using my zimmer frame of course. Pat

Hi Pat I'm like Gwynne my paternal grandmothers mothers paternal line stayed in the same Suffolk village as far back as abt 1480. Now we got to this date thanks to my ancestors Will in 1532 at Norwich Norfolk Courts as There are no church records of Thomas or his life because of the lack of Anglican records before 1550. most of his children were under the age of 22 when his will was written in 1524.The probate for his' will was processed in 1532 when he apparently died although no exact death date is given in the probate. Its amazing stuff He left most of his worldly goods to his eldest son ( my 11 x Grt Grandfather ) He also was born before before the Anglican Church kept public records which would have shown the christening, marriage, and death of family member. Never did find a marriage for hm and came to learn that a betrothel in those days was as good as marriage. His childen were christened from 1606 in the village church. Alongside parish records being checked we referred to Suffolk Court Rolls 1640 - 1652 , Soffolk Subsidy Return for Suffolk of 1327, 1524 & 1568 plus Wills or probate wherever poss. I worked backwards and checked and doubled checked my research and those of others that were given . Now on some branches of the family I am very stuck for one reason or another..... swings and roundabouts really isn't it. The main thing is to enjoy what your doing. Much happiness debi

Within a few weeks of joining I had my grandmother's ancestors, going back to 1702. This was nothing to do with me. My gran had an unusual surname, and I put it on the board, and Chris Drakes, who has been researching this family line for about 35 years gave me all the info - plus relations abroad.......so it is not always hard graft that brings the rewards - sometimes it is the generosity of others......

Pat If somebody posts saying 'stuck at 1640' or whatever, my response is 'jammy whatsit!' Some of my ancestors managed to become Met Police or committed a crime and they have more records about them. But I also have families with common names who stayed in the same villages who just didn't appear to have their children christened, and who don't seem to be buried anywhere! nell

Wish I had royalty in my tree it would make it easier to trace. No you aren't incompitent. You are doing it right. Some people find things out easier. Though I do have on line back to about 1400 sadly not my work just this guy did it for 30years and wrote a book . Luckily he traced the family down to my gg grandmother. Thanks heavens for that book. No point in just adding names without some sort of proof. Germaine x

It seems my lot came from a market town,lots of intermarriage and they all called their children John or Mary lots born same year,illigitimates everywhere,and talk about changing their first names my g/gran was born Mary ane married Maria Jane (certs) on 1901 she's Jane,after used Ginny and her sister was Mary Ann, two of her other sisters changed their names and none could read or write, so try finding that lot,

Hi Patricia No, it isn't just you. I was happily researching my various branches and having quite a bit of success. They had mostly unusual surnames and even when they had moved area I was able to find them by fairly unusual Christian names but since trying to find my hubbys Smiths I have felt a complete failure. I know that it is the most common name but I still feel that I should be able to find them and that I'm sure others would have found them by now. It does make you feel a failure. I shall never give up though - who knows, one day!! Chrissie x

Pat - you are not alone. On my paternal grandmother's side I struck lucky(ish) with a distinctive name and a small village in Lancashire. Within a couple of weeks I had gone back to 1670 thanks to 3 wonderful people who had already done the research, had the necessary proofs and wheedled out the marriages between cousins with the same names. It was very exciting The other branches have been a hard slog with Smiths and Robinsons in London, but I am taking my time and am getting there thanks in part to the help I've had on here, the discovery of a family bible and also to a long suffering husband who's tree I'm not even researching and have no inclination to. I just enjoy it, despite the frustrations. Or maybe because of them! To those who've struck lucky, congratulations and to the rest good luck! Daisy

Hi Pat, Have got back to 1750 on only one line and that is only 95% sure. 2 of my direct lines finish in the 1820's and I am not likely to get past that as I have no idea of birthplaces so haven't a clue where to look. My maternal great grandfather was a Scot and I have got back to 1859 when he was born. He was illegitimate and his mother's name was Elizabeth Ross. Try finding her in Scotland ... lol. I have a great grandmother who was an Irish tinker ....and so it goes. Feel lucky to have got as far as I have with such a dysfunctional family......but I still keep looking. Jean x.

On my husband's line the females keep taking years off their ages...do you think the census people will notice if I do the same?

I'm stuck with loads - Eliza Matthews who hasn't got her dad's name on marriage cert, and Rees Thomas who was born sometime somewhere in Carmarthen - I'll never be able to find him! Don't feel bad - it certainly isn't just you Lisa