RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: JanPennington on Tuesday 21 March 17 05:59 GMT (UK)
-
Hi
I have been researching my family history for about a year and view threads here about problems people are having finding records in the 1600's with mixed feelings, incredulity that they have got that far back, envy that they have found so many generations, inspiration to keep going, but today I have beaten them all.
In one simple search for the details about Richard, the half-brother of my illegitimate Great-great-grand-mother I found that Richard had a family tree online and when clicked I was taken to a tree with people from the FIFTH CENTURY. I wandered around the tree for awhile but I couldn't find Richard but I did find William the Conqueror.
How tempting to add this to my family tree.
But what about the errors I have found on other trees - Ann who apparently died in 1860 but appeared on the census in 1861
I think I'll go back to searching person by person and record by record and double checking everything some else has found or put online.
Jan
-
Jan,
That's why I call it 'Fancestry'....most are all fantasy & for FindMyPast, I call it 'Blind my Past' as the transcriptions of some are a joke i.e. not findable to novices who don't know about mis-transcriptions/variants etc
Annie
-
5th century!!! Is that according to Bede, or maybe Roman documents that they have "researched" ;)
-
I'm not sure. The names looked Scandinavian - perhaps the Vikings had a civil registration 14 centuries ahead on Britain. Or possibly Dr Who went back in time to check details.
Jan
-
Jan,
Don't you find it amazing where/how people find these things?
I think if I really was related to such a prominent person, with 'my' tree online, I sure as heck would be keen to show all the documentation to prove it, wouldn't you or anyone else for that matter :-\
Annie
-
Yes I agree.
I know once you can prove a link to the Royal Family or a Lord then it is possible to access some additional information as they do on WDYTYA, but there must be limits even for the Royal family in tracking back to before written records
Of course in the bible there are long lists of who begat who but I wouldn't claim any relationship to biblical people.
Jan
-
Let's just say...no point in upsetting peoples dreams/fantasies ;D
Lots of Islands, not come across 'Fantasy Island' (yet) :-\
Annie
-
Yes, after reading other members comments about trying to suggest that trees online might be inaccurate I don't think I'll try to correct this tree, especially as I wouldn't be able to prove that the ancestors from 5th century are wrong.
I'll leave them to their dreams and return to my farm labourers, servants and the odd soldier fighting at Crimea and World Wars 1 and 2.
Jan
-
Jan,
I'd be tempted to get in touch to ask for a copy of the 'paper trail' as I'm interested where I fit in there ;D
Annie
-
It is possible to get back to earlier centuries, with Inquisition post mortems, Chancery Proceedings etc. and I have wills dated 1400s/1500s. I wouldn't say I'd got as far back as William the Conqueror though, or Adam and Eve. ::)
-
In one simple search for the details about Richard, the half-brother of my illegitimate Great-great-grand-mother I found that Richard had a family tree online and when clicked I was taken to a tree with people from the FIFTH CENTURY. I wandered around the tree for awhile but I couldn't find Richard but I did find William the Conqueror.
Yes a lot of online trees have problems and are inaccurate for a host of reasons. However, some people can trace their tree back to William I or whoever with a good degree of accuracy. In large part it all comes down to having a "gateway" ancestor i.e. one who connects to the aristocracy as by and large the records kept for them are more abundant and so there is a greater chance of finding a match. That said even if you do stumble across a tree that takes you back that far you should endeavour to verify each step of the way starting without yourself and working backwards.
Still at the end of the day if you can not prove a line of descent all is not lost as it has been variously estimated that between 20 and 40 per cent of "British" people (by ethnicity) are actually descended from William I.
And yes I have a tree that goes back to William I, and indeed further back due to my "gateway" ancestor Anne Bowyer ;)
-
It is possible to construct genealogies from today’s generation right back to biblical times but because many if not most of the original records have been lost these depend on older constructed pedigrees.
These older pedigrees in turn cannot now be proved to be accurate.
In some case it is possible to construct accurate pedigrees back to the 5th century by use of a gateway ancestor into a royal line or for example some Welsh pedigrees that have shown to be accurate back to the 4th century (see Celtic culture: a Historical Encyclopedia. Volume 1, A-Celti).
The secret is knowing which medieval pedigrees have been shown to be accurate and which include flights of fancy, the subject has engrossed a number of medieval experts for many years and should not be dismissed out of hand due to ignorance of the subject.
By the same token we cannot simply accept everything just because it is in print or was printed a few hundred years ago.
Then as now some people took pains to produce accurate work others too shortcuts and added ancestors without adequate checking of sources and still others (including heralds) constructed bogus pedigrees for money.
Cheers
Guy
-
I realise that statistically many people are descended from William 1. So far my searches show that on both my father's and mother's side everyone is English so there is a possibility. It's the fifth century ancestors that I find hard to believe.
Because my great-great-grandmother was illegitimate I can't be certain I have the right father even though she names her father on her marriage certificate. He had gone to Canada by then so couldn't agree or disagree. He proving hard to track back to parents. It is one of his legitimate children who I was tracking when I found the tree going back so far. It's going to tkae a long time to prove or disprove my link into the tree. But it will fun to try.
Jan
-
Like Guy mentioned, "Ancestry" fantasy trees are not a new phenomenon. Apart from wishful thinking there was also the need to prove lineage for personal gain, be it power, money or property. Also there were the "genealogists" such has Gustav Anjou who made up family trees, to order almost.
I suppose that William can be tracked back to Rollo but that was 9th? century, and Rollo's birth data is a mystery so far has I know.
-
Guy,
The line lead from 5th century to William the Conqueror. Is he a gateway person back to that time?
I know some Norse legends include lists of ancestors but I am not sure whether they could be considered accurate as the stories told by bards were intended to flatter the person paying, or impress the audience.
Jan
-
Guy,
The line lead from 5th century to William the Conqueror. Is he a gateway person back to that time?
I know some Norse legends include lists of ancestors but I am not sure whether they could be considered accurate as the stories told by bards were intended to flatter the person paying, or impress the audience.
Jan
There are many such pedigrees some are accurate some are not (this can be seen where they disagree with each other). In a similar way there are many pedigrees showing lineage from William the Conqueror to Charlemagne in the 8th century but now some historians doubt whether Charlemagne actually existed or was part of a historical conspiracy theory as suggested by Heribert Illig.
In the end it is up to you to read as much as is available and make your own judgement on each according to its merits.
Cheers
Guy
-
History was one of my worst subjects at school as much that I was supposed to learn seemed irrelevant. Since starting to research family history I have read and learned a lot about nineteenth century England particularly relating to farm workers. I still have a great deal to learn about earlier times.
I am looking forward to finding out more about my ancestors and what their lives may have been like in earlier centuries - I have a long way to go.
Jan
-
Hi, If I were you, Id copy the info but file it under a huge question mark [come up with your own title] Ive been chasing the family tree for a long time and often I've gone and dismissed something as not related or total fantasy 'as if' and blow me down many years down the track that info i found was true but id be dammed if i could re- find it on line..... always leave a trail of where you searched as its painful to know the info is out there somewhere if only i could remember just where i found it
-
I'm quite happy with all the small tradesmen, farmers, shipwrights, ag labs, etc in my ancestry - at least I'm pretty sure no one else wants 'em, and I don't need to order a tiara!
I try to keep my feet one the ground ... and that ground falls away on all sides before 1560s! more a landslide obliterating all than a gateway accessing all!
-
Is Danny Dyer now a gateway ancestor?
-
! I like that! (He's going to take a long time to live that WDYTYA? down, isn't he?)
-
Here's a tree showing God at the top all the way down to Prince George.
http://www.jesusevidence.org/gen.html
-
Hmmm!
I have just looked at the tree mentioned by Hammerman. I could not quite understand the link from Judah to Ireland. I would need to see more of the evidence.
I will save the tree I found as was suggested earlier for interest and go back to slowly plodding through the records.
Jan
-
Jan,
That's why I call it 'Fancestry'....most are all fantasy & for FindMyPast, I call it 'Blind my Past' as the transcriptions of some are a joke i.e. not findable to novices who don't know about mis-transcriptions/variants etc
Annie
I like that..... ;D
Carol
-
I'm quite happy with all the small tradesmen, farmers, shipwrights, ag labs, etc in my ancestry - at least I'm pretty sure no one else wants 'em, and I don't need to order a tiara!
I try to keep my feet one the ground ... and that ground falls away on all sides before 1560s! more a landslide obliterating all than a gateway accessing all!
I'm with you there, Yorky!
At least with all our rude mechanicals, when there's an extra-marital parental occurrence there's a reasonable chance that you'll find a bastardy order to tell you all about it, and will be able to research the TRUE reputed father! In the noble families, these things were as often as not swept under the carpet (not much point, really, in an Earl seeking a bastardy order requiring his cook to contribute to the upbringing of his child, is there??) and so you'll never find out that you're barking up the wrong (family) tree.
-
Agree. - But in another way, it'd be nice to get just that bit further back on at least one line. However, all so hopelessly "plebian" that I've not a cat in hell's chance of getting there.
Still, better than those mysterious Irish, who all seemed so vague about ages and place of origin even within Ireland - none of those goes beyond 1850!
_But I feel sure really that I must have William the Conqueror, Attila the Hun and possibly Boudicca in there, somewhere!!!
-
I have some landowners in my tree and some gentlemen, many of these people started off at the bottom and worked their way up. I have rellies from Sussex so I may be descended from Billy The Conq.
Royal ancestors tended to have everything handed to them on a silver platter with bells on it whereas ag labs, weavers and local tradesmen toiled away to feed their families.
-
Reading through this thread, I went to Ancestry to find an example of a copy-and-paste tree which linked into my own and - surprise, surprise - the first one I tried was just the sort of thing I was looking for.
Back in the 1500s it shows Thomas married to 'Anne' and during their marriage they had 12 children, the first four a year or so apart, then longer gaps, and then after a space of 20 years, the poor woman produced another four whilst in her 70s...... And if that wasn't enough, there was then 'Unknown spouse' which then listed another ten children, whose dates of birth interleaved or were close to the dates of birth of the children of 'Ann'. Dearie me, don't people ever actually look at what they are copying and pasting? This kind of nonsense makes me cross. I don't mind them having a rubbish tree, but I do get fed up with that kind of rubbish coming us as a 'hint' on my tree.
-
This is, I think, one of the reasons why I have moved away from the concept of a "tree" more or less entirely. By writing up the narrative of the life of each of my ancestors which is implied by the records I have found, I will (hopefully) notice any absurdities and revise my thinking as necessary.
There is a very professional looking "family" site for one of my close family names (my mother's maiden name, as it happens) which is awash with absurdities. They do have the good grace to say that they still have "a lot of work to do" on my particular branch ... but they don't seem remotely interested in my offer of help to put them right.
So they have a mid-19th century Huntingdonshire ag lab having children in Huntingdonshire, Manchester, Yorkshire, Sussex, London, and back to Huntingdonshire again ...
Errrrrr ... I think not!
-
jmbl and greensleeves, I'm totally with you! When idly perusing just two trees, linked to different lines of my ancestry, I've seen:
child two years younger than his father
Same spouse, with same dates, attached to three generations(!) of the same male first name and according to the tree, producing over 20 progeny, many names and dates in more than one paternal generation(And if that isn't illegal, it ought to be!)
Long list of children born, less than a year between three of them, even overlapping with several of the same first name apparently surviving to further the next generations, the first brood ranging over 56 years of childbearing ( no wonder Mum seems to have vanished away to die unknown)
Individuals within said families born all over the British Isles, and elsewhere ( no, no seafarers on that line )
Same with census "evidence" - swapping age, spouse (and her age), job, location, children's names, sequence and ages! -And parents, of course, too!
Oh, and marrying MY ancestors off to the wrong family completely, banishing them abroad and foisting whole families of offspring onto them
-
My mother's response to "my family came over with the Conqueror" was "Oh, we were here before that!"
We seem to be descended entirely from Saxon (or Jutish) peasants.
-
My cousin spoke to somebody who spoke to somebody who said in all seriousness that we are descendants of Robin Hood.
Now I think it's established that Robin Hood did actually exist - that is, there was a person of that name or similar who fitted the description of the legendary outlaw - but how would one go about verifying such a supposition? "Robin" is such a common name, and "Hood" probably not so rare either, that I dare say any person of English ancestry is quite likely to have at least one Robin Hood in their family tree. The outlaw Robin Hood was... ummm... an outlaw, so probably would not have been all that diligent in making sure any marriages, births etc were properly recorded and registered. Indeed, I never heard any mention of him ever having had children.
-----------------------------------------------
Answering the OP: probably not. Just because your grandfather's house had a door with "WC" on it, does not mean it once belonged to William the Conqueror.
-
Ahhh! but the one that claimed such ancestry has a bow and arrow that must have belonged to Robin Hood..... that proves it!
-
Youngtug I see an Arden in your list of names. I am pretty sure when seeing another email ages ago that only about five names have written proof of time and inheritance as they were landowners. I am petty sure Arden was one of those names. I cannot remember but it may have been info re 1066 ??? Lookin2
-
Not quite back to 1066,,,yet. :)
-
Ahhh! but the one that claimed such ancestry has a bow and arrow that must have belonged to Robin Hood..... that proves it!
Exactly. It carries his initials. :D
-
Not quite back to 1066,,,yet. :)
About 600 years short isn't it? ;D Just got to hope they're not in one of the Wiltshire parishes with missing registers when they appear on Ancestry. :-X
-
Not quite back to 1066,,,yet. :)
About 600 years short isn't it? ;D Just got to hope they're not in one of the Wiltshire parishes with missing registers when they appear on Ancestry. :-X
When ::)
Then of course, they are in that North East corner of Wiltshire, next to Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire and,, Berkshire!.
-
Youngtug
Further to my email of yesterday. I came across where I had read that Arden was a very ancient name. Guess where I read it "stanmapstone re Royal Ancestors Thursday, July 29, 2010". ….it is said that only two families, can, with certainty, trace their lineage back in the Anglo-Saxon Domesday forebear. One of these is the Arden family of Shakespeare fame….". Lookin2
-
As I recall, "Robin Hood" was properly styled Robert, Earl of Huntingdon. Or at least, by the 16th century it would appear that he had been "elevated" to this status ... but earlier sources for the title are somewhat thin on the ground (non-existent, indeed ...) and there is no remotely contemporary evidence for this title; whilst all known holders of the title for whom there IS contemporary evidence were NOT him!
The current Earl of Huntingdon is not a descendant - as the line has become extinct and the title re-created several times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Huntingdon
-
Youngtug
Further to my email of yesterday. I came across where I had read that Arden was a very ancient name. Guess where I read it "stanmapstone re Royal Ancestors Thursday, July 29, 2010". ….it is said that only two families, can, with certainty, trace their lineage back in the Anglo-Saxon Domesday forebear. One of these is the Arden family of Shakespeare fame….". Lookin2
There are a lot of Arden families in both Warwickshire and elsewhere. I doubt they are all related, more likely took the surname from the area, namely Forest of Arden.
-
Not quite back to 1066,,,yet. :)
About 600 years short isn't it? ;D Just got to hope they're not in one of the Wiltshire parishes with missing registers when they appear on Ancestry. :-X
When ::)
Then of course, they are in that North East corner of Wiltshire, next to Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire and,, Berkshire!.
Not come across anything in Oxfordshire and so far north Berkshire. That said I think there are links to one Highworth family line in south Gloucestershire but I don't think the registers were on Ancestry for the parish when I last looked, it may come under Bristol RO.
As to when, who knows with Ancestry. :-\ The RO said it would take a while when they posted on their website blog this time last year.
-
There are a lot of Arden families in both Warwickshire and elsewhere. I doubt they are all related, more likely took the surname from the area, namely Forest of Arden.
The whole district is (or at least once was) called Arden. Forest of Arden is just one of many contemporary examples of places in Arden being named by reference to Arden.
So I suspect they took the name from Arden, rather than specifically from the forest thereof ..
-
I see an Arden in your list of names. I am pretty sure when seeing another email ages ago that only about five names have written proof of time and inheritance as they were landowners. I am petty sure Arden was one of those names.
In the 1960s we lived in Arden Street, New Mills, in the Peak District. It was a typical Peak District street with stone terraced houses.
-
The whole district is (or at least once was) called Arden. Forest of Arden is just one of many contemporary examples of places in Arden being named by reference to Arden.
So I suspect they took the name from Arden, rather than specifically from the forest thereof ..
I agree, perhaps not the best written reply of mine. :-\ However, the aim was to refute the suggestion by Lookin2 that all Arden families went back to the same "ancient family". YT and I are researching the same Arden family in Wiltshire and there are quite a lot in that wider area with so far no obvious links, as happens with many families with the same surname. There may be links but probably pre-parish registers and not confirmable unless they were sufficiently well off to leave a paper trail.
-
Smudwhisk
Where did I say all Ardens were related. I thought that Stanmapstone's comment on the name of Arden was interesting for those with the name of Arden. I have no idea when lots of us have the same surname who is directly related to whom.
I thought Stanmapstone's comment was interesting re the Ardens nothing more, nothing less and hope he still posts when he comes across something of interest to all of us amateurs. Lookin2
-
not confirmable unless they were sufficiently well off to leave a paper trail.
Far more likely to be confirmable if they were sufficiently well off to leave a parchment trail ...
-
So they have a mid-19th century Huntingdonshire ag lab having children in Huntingdonshire, Manchester, Yorkshire, Sussex, London, and back to Huntingdonshire again ...
Errrrrr ... I think not!
Funnily enough, I have a mid-19th century Huntingdonshire ag lab who had moved to Yorkshire with his wife, had a few kids there, then moved back to Huntingdonshire in-between censuses!
-
A distant relative has our family line traced back via Ethelred the Unready to the Saxon Cerdic King-of-West (reigned 534-560 AD) and on the other side Scottish kings back to Fergus MorMacErc, King of Scots d.501. It's all very convincing, and is traced back in a long line, but who knows? (I'm feeling very superior to Danny Dyer already. ;D) On my father's side, however, I seem to be descended from a long line of ag labs and cobblers.
-
So: you too have a load of Cobblers in your ancestry? I literally have, but some trees seem to metaphorically have 'em, too, don't they?
-
I was resisting the pun about cobblers, even though I felt that was what my relative's tree was! ;D
-
When Dr Cameron's phone rang, Janet would lift the earpiece and answer "Arden House".
-
I have managed to get further back on some lines recently and found some prosperous ancestors in the 1600s. So a slightly bigger chance of Billy The Conq being a direct ancestor. ;D
-
So: you too have a load of Cobblers in your ancestry? I literally have, but some trees seem to metaphorically have 'em, too, don't they?
And you think you've got problems. My family name derives from Cordwainer, which in fact a cobbler.
-
Guyana
I have several generations of Huntingdonshire cordwainers, but the following generations had to find other work after the factories took over shoemaking.
-
Mine have mostly been in farming, at least since the 1560s, although one or two went back into leather at times, and even into silk in a menial way.
-
I can do one better, in that the Norwood surname part of my tree are rumoured to be descendants of Harold Godwinson. I want my bloomin' throne back!!! ;D
In reality though even if it is true, proving it is going to prove to be a nightmare. A number of medieval genealogies, even if you can connect to them, are as much about politics as they are accurate families lines - unless there are genuinely people out there who are descendants of Thor & Odin.
-
Before 1800 I have so many "possibles" in my family tree as the waters get very murky before census and BMD eras. That is why wills and poor law records are a great substitute to census records. Also witnesses on marriages from 1754 onwards.
My ancestor was Sarah Lee who wed Thos Standen in 1767 in Bolney, Sussex. The transcripts seem to omit the witnesses names so I will have to wait until I can view the original PR. I don't think people realise how vital the witnesses names are, providing they are not regular ones. Sarah died in 1768 aged 34 (noted on her headstone). So born c1733/1734. I have 2 possibles, one in Clayton in 1733 and one in Ditchling in 1734. The Ditchling one seems to descend from a local lord of the manor and back to Borde Hall in Cuckfield. So she may descend from Billy the Conq then. ;D
A Mary Lee died in Bolney in 1767, a widow. Could be Sarah's mother. Both possible candidates for Sarah had mothers called Mary. It seems the mother of Sarah from Clayton died in 1737 as a Thomas and Mary Lee died close together, so the Ditchling one seems more likely. There is always a small chance there was a 3rd Sarah Lee born in the area.
-
I can do one better, in that the Norwood surname part of my tree are rumoured to be descendants of Harold Godwinson. I want my bloomin' throne back!!! ;D
Begging your pardon, but being a descendant of Harold Godwinson doesn't entitle you to the throne. It merely makes you, at best, king-worthy. An atheling. One of the candidates from whom the Witan are entitled to elect a king ...
There was no settled and established right of succession to the throne in Anglo-Saxon England.
-
No wonder there was so much murder and mayhem, then. Too many wannabes.
-
I've got a couple of copy wills from 17th and 18th century Huntingdonshire ancestors, one of which worth over £2 thousand left his eldest son the farmstead, the hovel (barn) and the lyon horse, etc to his oldest son with his daughter being left half a crown. I had illusions of the family being of a lower order to a richer ancestor. This week my illusion was shattered when I discovered their names taken from a list of bmd's in a book entitled "Commoners and Paupers" ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I can do one better, in that the Norwood surname part of my tree are rumoured to be descendants of Harold Godwinson. I want my bloomin' throne back!!! ;D
Begging your pardon, but being a descendant of Harold Godwinson doesn't entitle you to the throne. It merely makes you, at best, king-worthy. An atheling. One of the candidates from whom the Witan are entitled to elect a king ...
There was no settled and established right of succession to the throne in Anglo-Saxon England.
Indeed. Very much aware of this. A joke, my friend, a joke. :)
-
It ain't a joking matter, your Majesty.
-
Well, I must be the queen as I am married to Mr King ;D ;D
-
Honestly, B-B, would you really want to be Queen of Tamworth?
-
Ermmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :-\ :-\ :-\ :-X :-X