Are most people not interested in family trees?

[iluleah]

One of my relatives thinks family trees are not interesting unless you're related to a king, lord or other famous person. Probably a common misconception that trees are about documenting our links to the lives of better off people.


Blue

That likely comes from the misconception ( started in the US and mainly still thought as 'fact' there) that anyone who has 'English' ancestry can 'always' research back to Royalty. It seems it is forgotten that the majority of their immigrants were poor agr labs looking for a better life. Also which encourages this type of thinking is that whatever surname you have you have a 'family crest'

[pharmaT]

One of my relatives thinks family trees are not interesting unless you're related to a king, lord or other famous person. Probably a common misconception that trees are about documenting our links to the lives of better off people.


Blue

That likely comes from the misconception ( started in the US and mainly still thought as 'fact' there) that anyone who has 'English' ancestry can 'always' research back to Royalty. It seems it is forgotten that the majority of their immigrants were poor agr labs looking for a better life. Also which encourages this type of thinking is that whatever surname you have you have a 'family crest'

There was a study done that suggested that a large proportion of those with British ancestry were DID have at least one noble ancestor.  This was clarified that for most of these people there would not be a surviving paper trail back to this person.  I think this has been seized on by many  while ignoring the clarification that there would unlikely be a paper trail available.

I just want to point out before someone jumps down my throat that although SOME individuals suffered sudden loss of fortune married well beneath their status I am not claiming this was the norm.  What I do recognise is that with the laws of primogeniture it was normal for the youngest son to be less well off than their oldest sibling and through then generations experience a gradual  loss of wealth and status marrying people of similar status at each step.

[iluleah]

There was a study done that suggested that a large proportion of those with British ancestry were DID have at least one noble ancestor.

Not the case from my experience of mine and other FH research of British ancestry.

I am sure you are correct.... a study by who based on/using  what statistics? As it 'suggested' this information, so not proved fact based on family history research which is reality not what someone thinks, based on surname hunting and the assumption of ownership of a 'family crests' and/or what great great aunt wrote in and paid to published their own 'FH' book about the stories she was told when a child.

[pharmaT]

There was a study done that suggested that a large proportion of those with British ancestry were DID have at least one noble ancestor.

Not the case from my experience of mine and other FH research of British ancestry.

I am sure you are correct.... a study by who based on/using  what statistics? As it 'suggested' this information, so not proved fact based on family history research which is reality not what someone thinks, based on surname hunting and the assumption of ownership of a 'family crests' and/or what great great aunt wrote in and paid to published their own 'FH' book about the stories she was told when a child.

I was simply proposing where the idea may have originated regarding noble ancestors.  You say it is not your experience, yet I also specified that for the majority of researchers would have NO PAPER TRAIL leading back to any nobility. So really by saying  it is not your experience is agreeing with the second part of my post.  At no point did I say these people were correct in thinking they could link to nobility, I made no mention whatsoever of crests.

[iluleah]

There was a study done that suggested that a large proportion of those with British ancestry were DID have at least one noble ancestor.

Not the case from my experience of mine and other FH research of British ancestry.

I am sure you are correct.... a study by who based on/using  what statistics? As it 'suggested' this information, so not proved fact based on family history research which is reality not what someone thinks, based on surname hunting and the assumption of ownership of a 'family crests' and/or what great great aunt wrote in and paid to published their own 'FH' book about the stories she was told when a child.

As said "I am sure you are correct

I mentioned 'family crests' as when researchers who make these claims arrive to find their ancestry ( or get back further as is more often the goal) often while on holiday armed with a copy of their family tree' as is normal their 'family tree' is checked and in my experience of checking these they have collected information from other trees, printed books, surname hunted and assumed a 'family crest' which they base their tree on and the tree doesn't stand up as real.....disappointing for them if they really are interested in THEIR ancestry although many return home not liking reality of research and continue to make the same claims as before.

[Mike in Cumbria]

This is the research that Pharma refers to.

http://www.rootschat.com/links/01lse/

Based on known number of descendants of Edward III, estimates of population size and mathematical modelling.

[JAKnighton]

The misconception arises from people phrasing it as "All Europeans can trace their lineage to royalty", which isn't true, only a small fraction can actually document the link through research.

It has however been mathematically proven that all modern Europeans descend from royalty.

[coombs]

I agree about Ireland.  Mine though, are from Yorkshire and a fairly concentrated area (even though part of it changed Ridings over time), but it's still difficult pinning them down.

Your recent post about the gentry often wanting servants who were not local to their area has certainly opened up my eyes, hence why when you are doing genealogy you can sometimes find surnames in areas of the UK where the surname is hardly ever found. In 1911 my Oxford born great gran was a servant 100 miles away in Bexhill, Sussex. And I have found other non direct rellies working in service a long way from their birthplace.

[Chilternbirder]

I agree about Ireland.  Mine though, are from Yorkshire and a fairly concentrated area (even though part of it changed Ridings over time), but it's still difficult pinning them down.

Your recent post about the gentry often wanting servants who were not local to their area has certainly opened up my eyes, hence why when you are doing genealogy you can sometimes find surnames in areas of the UK where the surname is hardly ever found. In 1911 my Oxford born great gran was a servant 100 miles away in Bexhill, Sussex. And I have found other non direct rellies working in service a long way from their birthplace.

I found the same with my g grandfather who suddenly turned up in Reigate after being brought up near Braintree. Investigation in that case showed that the newly married lady of the house was his father's boss. By the time that he was 18 he was back home getting nicked for petty theft before being packed off to work with his brother in London. Two brothers moved to similar distances with jobs as grooms (one later becoming a chauffeur) and I haven't established local links for finding those jobs.

I haven't found any gentry let alone nobility in my tree but there are a couple of cases where well off bourgeois families have come down to poverty.