Ancestors who were landowners, gentlemen, or pillars of the community

[hurworth]

It is nice, simply because people who were landowners, gentlemen or pillars of the community left more records and so are easier to trace.  The average ag lab (once you get pre 1837) probably only and a few recorded incidences in his/her life...

If they're not recorded for being landowners, gentlemen or pillars of the community then for genealogy purposes I'd recommend being charged with a crime to get you in the books.

Imprisonment for a month is the only record we have of the physical traits of one ancestor.  He'd been found guilty of larceny.  My husband is descended from a "lewd woman" and the next two generations also had brushes with the law.

Lunacy was also likely to get you in the records.  These have provided details that I would not have had otherwise.

[Maiden Stone]

Hi hurworth. Records from 2 Quarter Sessions in consecutive years exist for my 3xGGF, of my yeoman family. 1st an Affiliation & Maintenance Order; 2nd an assault charge. The following year one of his brothers moved to Manchester to take over an inn there. Little brother went with him. Elder brother  appeared twice in court cases concerning the pub during next few years. Then his name was published in newspapers throughout the land in a list of bankrupts.
 Another Affiliation Order, same  year as aforesaid,  may have concerned the birth of another 3xGGF in the next parish. 40 years later their children married each other. 2nd ancestor died in workhouse.

[coombs]

I recently discovered a direct rellie who was a vicar as was his father and they both went to Oxford and Cambridge respectively. This was the late 1500s and early 1600s and their children were yeomen and clerks.

Most of us will find direct rellies who were in high standing occupations if we looked hard enough and/or went back far enough.

[smudwhisk]

There does seem to be a misconception amongst some researchers that if your ancestors were Ag Labs or the like in later centuries, then that is all they ever were.  A friend of my Aunts stopped researching because all she found was Ag Labs, but she hadn't apparently gone back that far.  However, that isn't often the case.  I've numerous examples of ancestors who were this in the 18th and 19th centuries but having managed to research the generations back further, supported by Wills and the like, many actually were merchants, farmers, yeoman and other such occupations.   The problem was the money ran out as the generations went further forward as it was split in so many ways.

[lizdb]

The problem was the money ran out as the generations went further forward as it was split in so many ways.

Interesting you say that, as we have often remarked on the same thing. Whilst it may seem unfair to leave all a property to, say, the eldest son, it does mean that property is kept in the family. The alternative, that we have seen more than once, is that the family property is sold and the proceeds divided between several children, and within a generation or two they are Ag labs or of similar more lowly occupations. Whereas if the property is left in its entirety to one member of the family it and gets passed down at least one line remains "landowners" and usually but not always other siblings also seem to remain in that social class too, even without inheriting a portion of the value of the property but maybe just some money or an annuity. 

[coombs]

There does seem to be a misconception amongst some researchers that if your ancestors were Ag Labs or the like in later centuries, then that is all they ever were.  A friend of my Aunts stopped researching because all she found was Ag Labs, but she hadn't apparently gone back that far.  However, that isn't often the case.  I've numerous examples of ancestors who were this in the 18th and 19th centuries but having managed to research the generations back further, supported by Wills and the like, many actually were merchants, farmers, yeoman and other such occupations.   The problem was the money ran out as the generations went further forward as it was split in so many ways.

Just what I was thinking the other day when I found the vicars and landowners in my tree, inheritance had to be shared out and many people may not have done well in business and later became labourers. Yet their grandad or great grandad was a landowner and maybe further back there was barons, knights, sir's and the like, and royalty. Danny Dyer for example. Just because someone were born into a royal family does not mean that their children and grandchildren and so on will have such a luxury due to money being lost. Hence why many of us do descend from royalty due to the generations between them and us climbing down the social scale.

[clairec666]

There does seem to be a misconception amongst some researchers that if your ancestors were Ag Labs or the like in later centuries, then that is all they ever were.

Very true! But if you hit a brick wall of ag labs pre-1800 it's hard to get any further. (I'm currently stuck on a Hopkins family of ag labs, mostly called John and Mary, which doesn't help ) Even if the statistics prove they've got noble blood somewhere along the line, finding it is a different matter - and you don't know whether it's two generations back, or 22!

If you're lucky, you can use parish registers to make intelligent guesses, you might get some potential parents and grandparents, then check out whether they left a will. It's amazing how the information in a will can put all the pieces together. But if there's no will, you're back to square one!

[coombs]

Yes before 1800 the waters get very murky and if you come across a rare surname then it can have a trillion billion zillion variants. 

You have much more "Maybes" and "could be's" before 1800. If they were farmers and yeomen then it is easier as many left wills and if you can trace back to Sir Joe Soap, then you should be laughing.

[pharmaT]

I have no Royal connections that I'm aware of.  However the line I'm working on just now for my daughter's tree is a prime example of varying fortunes in a family.  This line (luckily for me) started off in a parish where the Priest kept very good records and they survived.  The earliest known ancestor was a farmer and a lot of his descendants have been identified and a book written(not by me).  I haven't finished reading it yet but the line I'm working on is accurately depicted.

Descendants of this farmer include someone marrying the Lord of the manor, people being awarded titles, rich merchants and very successful pillars of the community. There are also ag labs, other sorts of labourers, bankrupts etc as well as my branch which is described as "the embarrassing poor branch"