Author Topic: Are most people not interested in family trees?  (Read 11926 times)

Offline River Tyne Lass

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,481
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #36 on: Saturday 10 March 18 13:51 GMT (UK) »
I love Judge Judy!  :D Have you read her book 'Don't Pee On My Leg And Tell Me It's Raining'.  I think she has got to be one of the smartest women on the planet today.  If she was running for President and I was American I would vote for her any day.  I love her common sense style.

Yes, that is true some people have no interest in genealogy. :o :o  Perhaps they have a faulty gene or something.  Maybe medical science might be able to correct that one day. ;D ;)

I have no interest in sport either.  I know a lovely man, who does research on all things to do with football history.  He has received recognition for this and I think he deserves this for all the effort he puts into this.  I am sure a lot of people really appreciate what he has done and is doing.  He often tries to talk to me about this.  God bless him!  No matter how simple he tries to make this it all goes over my head as I simply have no interest so my brain will not grasp anything about footballers, their dramas and their matches etc.  I have tried to tell him politely but he doesn't seem to have grasped this.  I would try to bore, sorry, I mean try to intrigue him with my own genealogy interest, but he is louder and more than a match for me verbally I am afraid.  Sometimes, when I go to a particular library and really need to get anything done, I have to sit at a distance which would not facilitate shouting across.  I hope he never gets to read this. ;)  If he does, sorry, you know who you are,  I don't mean to be disrespectful or to hurt your feelings.  But football! ???  Sorry, I just don't get it! :P ;)

PS  If any of you know him and tell him about this I am not too worried.  I am anonymous after all. :-[  If he mentions RTL to me,  I will just say something like 'Who is that RTL, anyway, that cheeky beggar?  How dare she say anything derogatory about football!'  ;D ;)

 
Conroy, Fitzpatrick, Watson, Miller, Davis/Davies, Brown, Senior, Dodds, Grieveson, Gamesby, Simpson, Rose, Gilboy, Malloy, Dalton, Young, Saint, Anderson, Allen, McKetterick, McCabe, Drummond, Parkinson, Armstrong, McCarroll, Innes, Marshall, Atkinson, Glendinning, Fenwick, Bonner

Offline River Tyne Lass

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,481
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #37 on: Saturday 10 March 18 14:06 GMT (UK) »
Coombs, your motto has made me smile... 'Research the dead ... forget the living'.

Very wise!!    I like you!! :D ;)
Conroy, Fitzpatrick, Watson, Miller, Davis/Davies, Brown, Senior, Dodds, Grieveson, Gamesby, Simpson, Rose, Gilboy, Malloy, Dalton, Young, Saint, Anderson, Allen, McKetterick, McCabe, Drummond, Parkinson, Armstrong, McCarroll, Innes, Marshall, Atkinson, Glendinning, Fenwick, Bonner

Offline coombs

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,448
  • Research the dead....forget the living.
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #38 on: Sunday 11 March 18 19:25 GMT (UK) »
Coombs, your motto has made me smile... 'Research the dead ... forget the living'.

Very wise!!    I like you!! :D ;)

Yes, the living are alive, we know about them, lets research great great great grandfather Musgrave who did a few trips to the US and died there. Much more important. The living will have to learn to cook their own meals lol.
Researching:

LONDON, Coombs, Roberts, Auber, Helsdon, Fradine, Morin, Goodacre
DORSET Coombs, Munday
NORFOLK Helsdon, Riches, Harbord, Budery
KENT Roberts, Goodacre
SUSSEX Walder, Boniface, Dinnage, Standen, Lee, Botten, Wickham, Jupp
SUFFOLK Titshall, Frost, Fairweather, Mayhew, Archer, Eade, Scarfe
DURHAM Stewart, Musgrave, Wilson, Forster
SCOTLAND Stewart in Selkirk
USA Musgrave, Saix
ESSEX Cornwell, Stock, Quilter, Lawrence, Whale, Clift
OXON Edgington, Smith, Inkpen, Snell, Batten, Brain

Offline louisa maud

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,440
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #39 on: Friday 16 March 18 12:06 GMT (UK) »
I tend to watch people's faces when genealogy is discussed, if they have a glazed look of not being interested I back off, in my husbands family the aged aunts thought they were connected to a well to do family, but they are not,  I have done the whole of the so called "well to do family" and although we are the same surname we are not connected in any way, the aunts ask if they are related, the answer is no and they don't want to know anymore

Just enjoy what you do to research even if half the family aren't interested

Happy hunting

Louisa Maud
Census information is Crown Copyright,
from  www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Granath Sweden and London
Garner, Marylebone Paddington  Northolt Ilford
Garner, Devon
Garner New Zealand
Maddieson
Parkinson St Pancras,
Jenkins Marylebone Paddington
Mizon/Mison/Myson Paddington
Tindal Marylebone Paddington
Tocock, (name changed to Ellis) London
Southam Marylebone, Paddington
Bragg Lambeth 1800's
Edermaniger(Maniger) Essex Kent Canada (Toronto)
Coveney Kent Lambeth
Sondes kent and London


Offline Regorian

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,484
  • Henry Griffiths Jnr c1914, HMS Achilles
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #40 on: Friday 16 March 18 12:30 GMT (UK) »
In my experience most families are only interested back to their grandparents. Back in the 90's a cousin arranged for a party of his branch at his house. Quite a few came and with a couple of tin biscuit boxes of photographs. No one had any idea who the subjects were although it was their family branch. I was able to do some ID's. It was a social occasion, no one spoke about family history. When we left, my ladyfriend of the time said I was considered honoured guest, not family.

I got back to 1740's in my researches but that was all before the internet. Recently, the self same cousin employed a professional to push things back further. It only went back one generation due to lack of earlier parish records. At least it firmly established our roots in one village in the 1690's. I'm not sure it went down too well particularly as it was Wales despite the fact we have a Welsh surname.

I tried to track down as many living family members in the 90's and make contact, as I could. Some didn't want to know (One has to respect that). Some were happy to talk and some gave me some super photographs.   
Griffiths Llandogo, Mitcheltroy, Mon. and Whitchurch Here (Also Edwards),  18th C., Griffiths FoD 19th Century.

Offline pharmaT

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,343
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #41 on: Friday 16 March 18 12:39 GMT (UK) »
Personally it doesn't bother me that people aren't interested.  However I get hurt when people think it is ok to call me a weirdo, freak, or order me not to research because THEIR not interested.  I don't talk about my hobby much to others as I fully recognise it would bore them.  One of the reasons I used Rootchat is that I can share my excitement at a discovery with people who will get it. Yet some people think it's OK to name call when my reply to "What are you doing with your day off" is oh spending time with the kids then a bit of family history research once they're in bed. 

Campbell, Dunn, Dickson, Fell, Forest, Norie, Pratt, Somerville, Thompson, Tyler among others

Offline dawnsh

  • Global Moderator
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,532
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #42 on: Friday 16 March 18 12:54 GMT (UK) »
Op hasn't been back here since the 10th, maybe he's lost interest in Rootschat  :-X
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Sherry-Paddington & Marylebone,
Longhurst-Ealing & Capel, Abinger, Ewhurst & Ockley,
Chandler-Chelsea

Offline whitej

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #43 on: Monday 19 March 18 09:46 GMT (UK) »
I've enjoyed reading the posts on this topic.

In my experience, family and friends are only interested in generations back to 8 great-grandfathers. Anything before this they glaze over and are not interested. Common comments by 90% of them is "not interested in people who we never knew and who lived and died before I was born".





Offline coombs

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,448
  • Research the dead....forget the living.
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #44 on: Monday 19 March 18 14:35 GMT (UK) »
Does not matter if they are a great grandparent or 28 times great grandparent, they are still one of my ancestors and are a part of me. I have managed to get back to a early 1500s line in Hopton On Sea, Suffolk, near Gorleston and Gt Yarmouth. 500 years ago and it still fascinates me. The Fairweathers.
Researching:

LONDON, Coombs, Roberts, Auber, Helsdon, Fradine, Morin, Goodacre
DORSET Coombs, Munday
NORFOLK Helsdon, Riches, Harbord, Budery
KENT Roberts, Goodacre
SUSSEX Walder, Boniface, Dinnage, Standen, Lee, Botten, Wickham, Jupp
SUFFOLK Titshall, Frost, Fairweather, Mayhew, Archer, Eade, Scarfe
DURHAM Stewart, Musgrave, Wilson, Forster
SCOTLAND Stewart in Selkirk
USA Musgrave, Saix
ESSEX Cornwell, Stock, Quilter, Lawrence, Whale, Clift
OXON Edgington, Smith, Inkpen, Snell, Batten, Brain