33 generation tree

[rosie99]

Getting a bit off topic I think.

I was interested as I would not know where to start once I had got back to the 1700's  1600's

[bitzar]

Hi Annette

I find your post very interesting.  Someone who I am supposedly related to is claiming he can trace our tree back to the Viking's and even further and naming some VERY big names in history!!!

I thought I'd try to mimic the tree and prove it, but I cant even get back past the 1600's.  Any tips on where to begin.

Regards,

bitzar.

[lizdb]

You initially ask where to begin a tree.

Then you say you are "determined to have a tree."

But you also seem to be claiming to have researched 33 generations, in which case don't you already have a tree? 

My thought process couldn't get beyond this sequence either!

[Erato]

Someone right here on RootsChat offered to connect me and my tree, step by step, all the way back to Noah - say, 180 generations.  Unfortunately, though, I couldn't take him/her up on this fabulous [in more ways than one] offer due to a vexing unresolved illegitimacy issue in 1869 which prevented me from reliably connecting myself to the main trunk.  So it goes.

[Andrew Tarr]

In view of the original unclear request, might it be an idea to start at the top of the tree and work downwards, to find out if you could end up at yourself - as it were?   

[davidft]

Are there any suggestions as to where to begin a tree full of 33 generations dating back to the Vikings.
I feel looking at a tree gives you more idea of the overall result.
I am proud of myself but I am determined to have a tree of some sort.
Any help appreciated.
Annette

As you can tell from the replies your queation has caused some confusion. However yes it is possible to have a 33 generation tree, for example my 32nd great grandfather is William I. Needless to say when youy get that far back finding evidence can be very difficult and thus back then you have very few lines. If your question is how do you start a 33 generation then the old genealogical advice of start with yourself and work back generation by generation with "reliable" sources. Obviouly in some case, many cases?, the sources get lost and so toy cannot progress those lines.

[ThrelfallYorky]

We all usually start with ourselves, and work back down the generations - that's the safest way, isn't it? And because we don't make wild guesses, or slide dates and relationships to fit, that's probably why so few of us can get back beyond 1650s, or relate to famous names!
I assume that Annette is a fantastic and diligent researcher, very well-connected family, and with a huge pile of well-researched material, and wants to draw something worth putting on display (on a very large wall?) - but not all those fancy nobility and royal trees are all they're made out to be. Many an ancestor has been slipped from one side of a blanket to another, to clean up a claim!
I drew my far more humble mob all out by hand, in fine line pencil first, then with a fine line pen, two colours only - red for direct, black for the rest - and a ruler - and several very carefully joined large sheets of paper just for the mob I've got, and the very earliest anywhere there is 1580! Interesting large roll to store though! Can't imagine a longer trail back being at all easy.
Andrew Tarr - what do you think are the chances the OP would end up with themselves at the end?
Erato: are you any good at building Arks? It might run in the family. It's rained enough today here that we could do with one, please!

[rosie99]

You initially ask where to begin a tree.

Then you say you are "determined to have a tree."

But you also seem to be claiming to have researched 33 generations, in which case don't you already have a tree? 

My thought process couldn't get beyond this sequence either!

I assumed that as Annette had been on rootschat since 2004 that their tree was well established and not just beginning 

[Guy Etchells]

Actually this is interesting as a 33 Generation tree may not go back as far as some might think.

A tree descending through mother’s male lineage stating in circa 1450 is 13 generations to my grandchildren, however a tree from my male lineage starting in 1410 to my grandchildren is 21 generations.
Only 40 years between two people living at the same time yet a difference of 7 generations in the trees.
Some families have children earlier than other families.

Incidentally a basic lineage chart of the first family mentioned (my mother’s) can be printed on one A2 (16.5 x 23.4 inches) sheet of paper.

Both of these trees only display the main family line including children of each generation.
Often called a pedigree chart.

Cheers
Guy