RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Intevel on Friday 09 March 18 07:26 GMT (UK)
-
I suppose at what time I didn't think much of family trees. But lately I've really been into meeting new people and it's rewarding to welcome new people into your life. But sometimes I'll have conversations with friends and they don't know the first thing about a family tree. Many of them say they have no interests in getting to know their cousins or 2nd or 3rd cousins. They think that's silly and just want to be with their friends and close family.
I feel the opposite. I think that it's very valuable to get to know more people in your whole family. You can meet more people, make more relationships, learn different things. I'm not sure why people only wanna have their circle of friends but don't wanna meet people that aren't a brother or sister. You can also learn more about yourself and your ancestry and family history.
So the one thing that concerns me is that even if you discover new people, they might have no interest in you. I've heard people say that anything not a mom, sister, aunt, uncle or grandma is not a relative, but just someone that shares some DNA. Not sure why some people are so negative about the topic. They just feel so grumpy.
-
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think family tree interest is a bit like marmite - you either find you Love this or you have no interest whatsoever.
What I find fascinating is to consider that if one ancestor made a different set of choices then an entire future family would not exist. We are each dependent on the choices and survival of our previous bloodline ancestors.
-
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think family tree interest is a bit like marmite - you either find you Love this or you have no interest whatsoever.
What I find fascinating is to consider that if one ancestor made a different set of choices then an entire future family would not exist. We are each dependent on the choices and survival of our previous bloodline ancestors.
My cousin was even laughing at how I'm fascinated with family trees.
-
I grew up knowing some on my second cousins not all of them and still see them now. I know my mums cousins and do family history with them. No one else in my immediate family are interested in the research I have carried out. I think you either catch the family history bug or you don’t.
Regards panda
-
My cousin was even laughing at how I'm fascinated with family trees.
And you care because ........................ ???
Carol
-
My cousin was even laughing at how I'm fascinated with family trees.
And you care because ........................ ???
Carol
Perhaps this is your answer Carol :)
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=789456.
Doing your family tree is a hobby. Are you interested in other peoples hobbies :-\ I certainly see no reason to get upset if others are not interested ;D
-
Yes I saw that Rosie :)
I don't recall being that sensitive to other people's attitudes in my 30s :-\
-
Yes I saw that Rosie :)
I don't recall being that sensitive to other people's attitudes in my 30s :-\
Well should I call him my ''sort of friend?''
-
Yes I saw that Rosie :)
I don't recall being that sensitive to other people's attitudes in my 30s :-\
Well should I call him my ''sort of friend?''
But the problem is I would get banned if I continued to argue with you because people like you would get sensitive. People are such hypocrites.
-
Call him what you like - you can choose friends but not your family.
Think you are far too hung up on this and I agree wholeheartedly with Rosie in that genealogy is a hobby which I wouldn't necessarily expect everybody else to enjoy. After all that is why there are clubs/forums for like minded people.
I would never join anything to do with say stamp or coin collecting - each to his own.
Pheno
-
My trigger was to verify the several questionable stories that came directly from family members about my, and the origins of others, within my ancestor list. Interestingly, most turned out to be untrue, with a very few exceptions. Now, I just add data based on what I find incidentally when distant relations die.
Malky.
-
A friend of mine had done a very large family tree and connected with relations in other countries.
She had a terminal illness and asked me who would she give the tree information to.
My friend said that none of her immediate family had any interest. I suggested to give to one relation who had shown interest. Not sure what she did in the end.
Same friend helped me in my search. May She Rest in Peace.
Jfch
-
Call him what you like - you can choose friends but not your family.
Think you are far too hung up on this and I agree wholeheartedly with Rosie in that genealogy is a hobby which I wouldn't necessarily expect everybody else to enjoy. After all that is why there are clubs/forums for like minded people.
I would never join anything to do with say stamp or coin collecting - each to his own.
Pheno
How can you say I'm too hung up when you're also interested in genealogy? Isn't that a contradiction because you think the way I think is wrong but then you get to have your own interest?
-
Yes I saw that Rosie :)
I don't recall being that sensitive to other people's attitudes in my 30s :-\
Well should I call him my ''sort of friend?''
But the problem is I would get banned if I continued to argue with you because people like you would get sensitive. People are such hypocrites.
You're very unlikely to get banned just for disagreeing with someone on this site! We're (usually) very friendly and welcoming of other people's views. Calling someone a hypocrite isn't very friendly, but I doubt whether it will get you banned.
We all have different approaches to our genealogical searches. Personally, I don't have much interest in getting to know second and third cousins, apart from being able to fit them into the overall picture, and finding out if they have any new information about our joint ancestors.
-
Call him what you like - you can choose friends but not your family.
Think you are far too hung up on this and I agree wholeheartedly with Rosie in that genealogy is a hobby which I wouldn't necessarily expect everybody else to enjoy. After all that is why there are clubs/forums for like minded people.
I would never join anything to do with say stamp or coin collecting - each to his own.
Pheno
How can you say I'm too hung up when you're also interested in genealogy? Isn't that a contradiction because you think the way I think is wrong but then you get to have your own interest?
Pheno can answer for herself, but I think it's pretty clear what she means - you're too hung up on what your friends think about genealogy, not that you're too hung up on your hobby. Don't turn everything into an argument, just enjoy your genealogy in whatever way you want, as we all do.
Mike
-
Call him what you like - you can choose friends but not your family.
Think you are far too hung up on this and I agree wholeheartedly with Rosie in that genealogy is a hobby which I wouldn't necessarily expect everybody else to enjoy. After all that is why there are clubs/forums for like minded people.
I would never join anything to do with say stamp or coin collecting - each to his own.
Pheno
How can you say I'm too hung up when you're also interested in genealogy? Isn't that a contradiction because you think the way I think is wrong but then you get to have your own interest?
Pheno can answer for herself, but I think it's pretty clear what she means - you're too hung up on what your friends think about genealogy, not that you're too hung up on your hobby. Don't turn everything into an argument, just enjoy your genealogy in whatever way you want, as we all do.
Mike
Do you think you can respond to me about my cousin on my other thread?
-
Thanks Mike, that was precisely what I meant - why get hung up about how to introduce somebody or how you are introduced. Do what you like and if you are offended by what they introduce you as say something or ignore it.
I am definitely hung up about genealogy - too much so to spend any more time discussing this I'm afraid.- - want to be off doing some record searching.
Pheno
-
Thanks Mike, that was precisely what I meant - why get hung up about how to introduce somebody or how you are introduced. Do what you like and if you are offended by what they introduce you as say something or ignore it.
I am definitely hung up about genealogy - too much so to spend any more time discussing this I'm afraid.- - want to be off doing some record searching.
Pheno
Well that's weird to me. If you're okay with getting introduced by a friend as a ''somewhat of a friend'' then that's your prerogative. Can you post in my other thread?
-
Yes I saw that Rosie :)
I don't recall being that sensitive to other people's attitudes in my 30s :-\
Well should I call him my ''sort of friend?''
But the problem is I would get banned if I continued to argue with you because people like you would get sensitive. People are such hypocrites.
You're very unlikely to get banned just for disagreeing with someone on this site! We're (usually) very friendly and welcoming of other people's views. Calling someone a hypocrite isn't very friendly, but I doubt whether it will get you banned.
We all have different approaches to our genealogical searches. Personally, I don't have much interest in getting to know second and third cousins, apart from being able to fit them into the overall picture, and finding out if they have any new information about our joint ancestors.
That's kinda weird to me. You have no interest in getting to know them other than how they fit into the picture. They aren't really people to you, just stats.
To each it's own. But to me that's weird.
-
Why have you started a new thread? http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=789459.msg6451364#msg6451364
-
Why have you started a new thread? http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=789459.msg6451364#msg6451364
To separate the topic? People aren't really answering my question directly.
-
My interest and involvement in family history goes back to my childhood.
It has never involved me deliberately searching for LIVING strangers --- if in my research I came across any fellow family history buff who was also researhing same DECEASED person as me then I would share research.
I would not expect to become involved in their domestic or business lives.
So when sharing info ...well err ...it NEVER involved providing info about my LIVING relatives nor learning about their LIVING family. To me, it is not famlly history to choose to seek out living people and encroach on their lives.
JM
-
My interest and involvement in family history goes back to my childhood.
It has never involved me deliberately searching for LIVING strangers --- if in my research I came across any fellow family history buff who was also researhing same DECEASED person as me then I would share research.
I would not expect to become involved in their domestic or business lives.
So when sharing info ...well err ...it NEVER involved providing info about my LIVING relatives nor learning about their LIVING family. To me, it is not famlly history to choose to seek out living people and encroach on their lives.
JM
Whatever floats your boat I guess. You're more interested in knowing something about someone than knowing someone.
-
I cannot speak to anybody else's experiences, but in my experience those who do not wish to know about their family history display all the signs of FEAR. Sometimes, quite irrational.
I had a cousin ask me: "How do you know my address?"
My answer did not seem to dispel any distress they were feeling: "We have been exchanging Christmas cards for the last 30 years."
Regards
Chas
-
About 15 years ago, a cousin and I chased up all the cousins descended from one particular ancestral couple (1st, 2nd, 3rd, unclassified, removed and unremoved) using a snowball method. We then had a big get together and all got on very well. Some kept in touch, others didn't. I made some very good friends with some of them and we still keep in touch. Just like real life, we aren't friends with everyone because there might not be a sparkle or much in common.
We could have only done this by researching our ancestors.
Gadget
-
A second cousin contacted me as we had trees on Ancestry that were clearly based on the same common ancestors two generations back. This was very fruitful and resulted in both an exchange of family photos and anecdotes especially valuable for me as my father had not kept in contact with his extended family. Apart from matters relating directly to the family tree we haven't kept in touch.
-
]
That's kinda weird to me. You have no interest in getting to know them other than how they fit into the picture. They aren't really people to you, just stats.
To each it's own. But to me that's weird.
There you go again. I'm starting to wonder if all this deliberate misinterpretation of what people say is part of an elaborate wind-up.
However - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt just this once and answer your question. No, of course they're not just stats to me, they're real people. They have their own circles of friends and family, I have mine. I'm sure some of them are great people, others may not be so nice. However, they've all lived through the same times and life events that I have. My great great grandparents, and their ancestors, on the other hand, lived very different lives from mine - they lived through times of massive social change, important developments in agriculture and industry, through various wars, lost children to all sorts of diseases, survived Spanish flu - a whole lot of things that I haven't lived through. I am a direct descendant of these people, and I feel that my life, my whole existence is a continuation of theirs. Of course I find them interesting! Some sort of second or third cousin, at different degrees of removal, living a parallel life to mine through the second half of the twentieth, and the first two decades of the twenty-first century are much less interesting to me, and I know that works both ways.
Mike
-
I cannot speak to anybody else's experiences, but in my experience those who do not wish to know about their family history display all the signs of FEAR. Sometimes, quite irrational.
Chas
I would agree with you!
Other peoples family trees I am not interested in... I am interested in proving and researching mine and if during research I prove some extended relation then of course 50% of their tree is relevant and so their research and tree is interesting.
When I began to research NO ONE in my family would help, NO ONE would check their records or allow me to and they took a vow of silence about 'family', so apart from "let sleeping dogs lie" and "I don't know" comments they were no help whatsoever...so fear of what I would find and also thinking I would find nothing if they stayed silent made me very curious and I learned how to research and keep quiet.
Then one day( 20 yrs later) my mother asked me if I still did family history or had a "grown out of that faze"? Yes I still did it! .....and silence this time from me, so she assumed I didn't know/hadn't found what she thought needed to be hidden....she was wrong. Then a couple of years later she asked if I would speak to my cousin who wanted to know how to research ( as she really thought secrets of the past would remain so)
Sure I would help him and by this time the internet was available and the hundreds of trees and he was a copy and paste collector of those, so had no knowledge of research and proving and was horrified he had to start over and prove from real records especially as he found that his 'tree' was spurious only 4 generations in and his hundred of ancestors after that were not his ancestors at all.
My mother is still in the dark about what I have and I intend to keep it that way.
What I did do is find a 2nd cousin once removed on the other side of the world who sent me a copy of a photo which was in their family of my great grandparents and their children(their great grandparent/my grandfather plus our great aunts/uncles) which of course i had never seen and I had a copy made for my mother as they were her grandparents and she was thrilled but it did make her realise i knew a lot more than I was letting on.
-
I can understand why other people aren't interested in genealogy. I sometimes wonder, "why am I doing this? I am my own person, and I'm not defined by who my parents are, so why should I be interested in who my great-great-great grandparents are?"
And then I check to see if any new records are available ;D
-
I can understand why other people aren't interested in genealogy. I sometimes wonder, "why am I doing this? I am my own person, and I'm not defined by who my parents are, so why should I be interested in who my great-great-great grandparents are?"
And then I check to see if any new records are available ;D
;D ;D ;D
I know why I do it, only child of an only child who died when I was young I always felt I had no family, so research proved I did.........and I am plain and simply nosy ::)
-
I can understand why other people aren't interested in genealogy. I sometimes wonder, "why am I doing this? I am my own person, and I'm not defined by who my parents are, so why should I be interested in who my great-great-great grandparents are?"
And then I check to see if any new records are available ;D
;D ;D ;D
I know why I do it, only child of an only child who died when I was young I always felt I had no family, so research proved I did.........and I am plain and simply nosy ::)
Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss Only child of only child parents married to an only child and I only have one child!!
-
Hi Intevel,
How are you doing? :) I thought I would jump in here to give my view and advice as I genuinely think you are puzzled by people's responses to some of your posts.
I think genealogy is a wonderful hobby and has lots of benefits. It is big business and countless people all over the world are interested in this.
However, we are all different and have different interests and very different ways of enjoying things. For anyone who is interested in genealogy I think the important thing to enjoy this hobby in the way that suits you and gives you the most enjoyment and not to question or criticize the way others choose to do things.
For example, my local library runs a knitting club (true). I am going to give you an imaginary scenario. Imagine three different types of knitters who all sit at the same table in this group. One likes to knit simple things such as easy scarves or squares for dog blankets; the second can knit jumpers; the third person comes along to the group and knits all kinds of difficult and intricate items which take a long time to complete.
The first person could say to the third one "Why do you spend so much time working on something so complicated - you could be finished your project quickly and not have to concentrate so hard if you did something easy like me?" The second and third people could say to the first person "Why don't you challenge yourself more? You don't seem to be progressing much? Is it worth you coming here?"
However, the important thing is that they each enjoy things in their own way so why should either of them worry about or criticize another's way of doing things?
I mean this to be helpful and I would advise to let go of worrying about the way people choose to follow this hobby and enjoy the experience to the max in your own way. This is a great forum and you can have a great time on here. It is okay to question but always try to be respectful. Avoid name calling or saying anything which might come across as putting someone down. If you say something in a nice way such as using phrases such as 'I am a bit confused about what you might mean?' or 'I feel a bit hurt by that' others may try to respond more helpfully. I think lately on here things have become a bit inflammatory. And remember it is okay for people to agree to disagree.
For example, a few weeks ago I put a post on here about bullet journaling. I had come across lots of lovely designs on the internet and thought this a great organizational tool. I asked what people thought about this. The majority of people who responded did not see the point of this and did not appear to be interested in starting a bullet journal any time soon. Am I upset about this? No!! Of course not! I have now started my bullet journal hobby and I am enjoying this in my own quiet way using colours and designs to my hearts content. :)
It is not too late to turn things around. Have fun and enjoy this hobby and try not to get upset or concerned about the way others choose to do things or about the level of interest that may be right for them.
Best Wishes :)
PS Also, some people may have no interest at all in genealogy :o :o :o!!! Believe it or not! But that is okay too :) ;) ;D
-
River Tyne Lass, that was a good comment. I really despair at how people try to channel other people's use of the internet to conform to their own standards. We have 200 countries in this world, a thousand religions and you're never going to get everybody to agree with everybody else at the same time. The original poster stated his views with which we can choose to agree or disagree. In my local pub I can choose to talk to who I want, however I want, and they can choose to listen or ignore me. I often cite the example of if you were on an island but you thought you were the only person and then one day you found the 99 identical people all conforming to a certain standard comma and one person who is different. Which one would you choose to be your friend?
In our genealogy, as well as searching for the truth, we're also looking for the characters.
Martin
-
Hi Iluleah,
Your post made me smile .. the part where you wrote that you were asked if you had .. 'grown out of that faze'. We will always sometimes come across family members or friends who we might suspect us of being a bit mad or eccentric for pursuing this hobby.
This can happen with any hobby however. I had a friend once who developed an interest in playing the bongo drums. She and her husband started going along to a local group every week to play these drums and they loved it. However, another friend of ours was completely non-plussed. Why, he asked did they want to take part in something like this? What was the point? Where was this going to get them in life? etc, etc. I was there when she smiled sweetly and explained that she got enjoyment out of this for its own sake and it did not matter if this did not get them anywhere in particular in life. She then asked why he went to the pub every week. What was the point? Where was this going to get him in life? I just enjoy it, he replied. Exactly, she responded. I think he got the point. Each to their own. :) ;)
-
Thank you, Martin. I totally agree with what you have written. :) I believe in free speech as long as this is done respectfully and used in a way to build up rather than to hurt or be derogatory to others.
-
I have no interest in sport and I find sport cluttering up the TV channels can be annoying. But I find a way round that in the fact I often use the remote to find other things on TV such as repeats of comedies, Judge Judy, documentaries, WDYTYA, soaps etc. And some people will have no interest in genealogy.
-
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 ;)
-
Coombs, your motto has made me smile... 'Research the dead ... forget the living'.
Very wise!! I like you!! :D ;)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Op hasn't been back here since the 10th, maybe he's lost interest in Rootschat :-X
-
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".
-
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.
-
I find it hard to relate to people who lived much over 150 or 175 years ago. I can't relate to their style of life. When I started my research two or three years ago I just wanted to find out about one fairly recent ancestor but I got sucked in. However I'm more interested in breadth rather than depth. 1800 is quite early enough for me to stop, but I have got quite engrossed by the inter marriages amongst cousins of my ancestors. One particular name is reasonably obscure and I think I have researched every member of the family down to the Second World War. I wonder what it is that makes some of us go for width and some for depth. I find it hard to juggle with the concept of more than 32 or 64 Direct ancestors and I'm a mathematician.
Martin
-
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.
Totally agree, coombs. Well done you for getting back to that time. :)
-
Years ago I just wanted to find out about the birthplace of my great gran who was born in London in 1889. But I also got bitten by the bug of genealogy and have been hooked ever since.
I tend to be more biased towards some lines than others.
-
Op hasn't been back here since the 10th, maybe he's lost interest in Rootschat :-X
[/quote] Dawnsh
He is very active on the FTDNA Forums ;D
Kim
-
I tend to be more biased towards some lines than others.
I am very biased towards my Dryden line in Whitby. They appear in the Whitby Gazette many times -
rescuing people who fell in the harbour :)
fighting with and swearing at their neighbours :o
being drunk and disorderly and appearing in Court ;D
drowning :(
-
I tend to be more biased towards some lines than others.
I am very biased towards my Dryden line in Whitby. They appear in the Whitby Gazette many times -
rescuing people who fell in the harbour :)
fighting with and swearing at their neighbours :o
being drunk and disorderly and appearing in Court ;D
drowning :(
[/quote]
;D ;D ;D They sound interesting!
-
;D ;D ;D They sound interesting!
Yes, my 3xgreat grandfather William Dryden 67 was wandering along the pier one Saturday evening in 1868 in a drunken state. He fell, rolled through the rails and went over the edge, banged his head against a post and landed in the muddy harbour amongst the stones, the tide being out. He died the next day.
His grandson John Richard Dryden was the 2nd Coxwain of the Whitby Lifeboat and drowned in 1940 whilst trying to rescue the crew of a Belgian steamer. He and Christopher Wale who also drowned were the first lifeboatmen to lose their lives on service since the outbreak of WWII. They were posthumously awarded Bronze Medals by the RNLI.
Then you have Richard Dryden who blocked Church Street one evening by placing 3 barrels, 1 basket and a bag of onions in the roadway, left them there for an hour "without just cause"! He was fined 1s. His wife Sarah was fined 5s for being drunk on the same evening and using very strong "foul and disgusting language" in a public place.
My Williamson ag labs can't compete with all that. ;D
-
What wonderful stories tillypeg, these 'type' of ancestors make you think and certainly paints a picture of their lives both the good and bad parts.
My great grandmother came from Norfolk and when I began researching her siblings could never find one of them, so it was years before I set about seriously looking for her, thinking she had died in childhood ( and I somehow missed it) turns out she lived longer than any of her siblings, found lots of newspaper stories, she had tried to commit suicide by throwing herself of the pier, her father took responsibility for her ( and was charged a fine) he promised to care for her ( and stop her trying to commit suicide again), later she was put in an asylum.... all this was just further south in Norfolk of where yours people were, it must be something in the water on the east coast ::)
-
it must be something in the water on the east coast ::)
Definitely! Oh, I forgot to mention the tobacco smuggler in 1884 ;)
-
it must be something in the water on the east coast ::)
Definitely! Oh, I forgot to mention the tobacco smuggler in 1884 ;)
Now you are just showing off ;D ;D ;D
-
Op hasn't been back here since the 10th, maybe he's lost interest in Rootschat :-X
Dawnsh
He is very active on the FTDNA Forums ;D
Kim
[/quote]
Is he still looking for answers about his "sort of" cousin? ;D
-
I am very biased towards my Dryden line in Whitby. They appear in the Whitby Gazette many times -
rescuing people who fell in the harbour :)
fighting with and swearing at their neighbours :o
being drunk and disorderly and appearing in Court ;D
drowning :(
To be fair, Whitby hasn't changed much over time! ;D
-
I tend to be more biased towards some lines than others.
I am very biased towards my Dryden line in Whitby. They appear in the Whitby Gazette many times -
rescuing people who fell in the harbour :)
fighting with and swearing at their neighbours :o
being drunk and disorderly and appearing in Court ;D
drowning :(
Ancestors who lead very fruitful lives will always be more interesting than ones who never ventured more than a mile from their birthplace and were a labourer all their lives. Although they are still an ancestor, and they helped feed the country with their ag lab work.
-
To be fair, Whitby hasn't changed much over time! ;D
;D ;D
-
What is also interesting is when you find that your parents moved to a part of the country where they have some ancestors from. To a non genealogist, 1750 may seem a long way back to them but to me alone, I see 1750 as quite recent. I suppose as you can get back to the 1500s on some lines which makes 1750-1800 seem more recent.
-
I consider 1750 quite a good way back. Of my 4 main lines I've only got one definite pre-1700 - and that is a 1699 baptism - the others I can only get to mid 1700's with certainty.
-
I consider 1750 so far back it's an unreachable dream.
-
What is also interesting is when you find that your parents moved to a part of the country where they have some ancestors from.
I went to school in Redcar and believed, until very recently that I had no historical connection to the town. My mother's family came from the Yorkshire Dales on one side and Staffordshire and Co. Durham on the other. Until a brick wall fell down and I found that my 3 x great-grandmother was born in Redcar! I now find that I have family links all the way down that bit of the coast to Robin Hood's Bay. I was a bit chuffed to discover this!
As far as how far back seems a long way, well, that particular line was stuck in 1856 for a very long time so the fact that I am now back to the late 1700s seems to be a massive achievement. But in other lines, I have gone back relatively easily to 1600 then, with a bit of a leap of faith but no concrete evidence, I believe I can claim a link to someone born in 1543. When you think about what was happening in the bigger world at this time, it seems like a very long time ago - and I just wish I could prove it!
-
Fair point. I think those with Irish ancestors may see 1750 as a very long way back and unreachable. I do feel for those who are researching Irish forebears.
I have London ancestors and I managed to trace the pre census era movements of a line who originated in Norfolk. They moved to London in about 1780. Some lines I am stuck at 1790 though. 3 of them died before 1851 but were alive in 1841 and gave "No" for "born in county of residence".
-
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.
-
Most people seem to be uninterested in general.
-
What is also interesting is when you find that your parents moved to a part of the country where they have some ancestors from.
I went to school in Redcar and believed, until very recently that I had no historical connection to the town. My mother's family came from the Yorkshire Dales on one side and Staffordshire and Co. Durham on the other. Until a brick wall fell down and I found that my 3 x great-grandmother was born in Redcar! I now find that I have family links all the way down that bit of the coast to Robin Hood's Bay. I was a bit chuffed to discover this!
As far as how far back seems a long way, well, that particular line was stuck in 1856 for a very long time so the fact that I am now back to the late 1700s seems to be a massive achievement. But in other lines, I have gone back relatively easily to 1600 then, with a bit of a leap of faith but no concrete evidence, I believe I can claim a link to someone born in 1543. When you think about what was happening in the bigger world at this time, it seems like a very long time ago - and I just wish I could prove it!
I always liked Brighton and found that my 3xgreat grandfather lived there for 7 years from 1856 to 1863/1864. It was outer Brighton at the time (Near Preston Park) but was still Brighton. My aforementioned line who moved from Norfolk to London in about 1780 originated in Norwich, which is my home city. I was born in Gt Yarmouth. My Norwich lot had a line that originated in Barney and Gunthorpe near Holt and Fakenham.
-
Whenever I was travelling back to Kendal, across Stainmore on the A66, having visited family on Teesside, I had the most extraordinary feeling of "homecoming". I just put it down to the fact that I love living over here and once I was beyond Barnard Castle and heading for Brough, I was only about forty-five minutes away. Turns out my most distant ancestors so far ( he of the 1543 tenuous link in my previous post, plus those of his family I can legitimately claim), lived and worked the land in the parish of Brough under Stainmore. That's properly homecoming!! ;D ;D
-
I have traced most of my own lines back to the early 1700s although my Gardners in Lancashire are causing some grief, there are just so many Gardner families in that period, figuring out who belongs where & how they are inter-related can get mind-boggling. I am happy enough to flesh out their lives by exploring their local history & personal events.
I was brought up being told I was descended from the Gilpin family of Kentmere through my grandfather. After ten years of research I finally found the link in my great great grandmother who was born a Gilpin, her father features in many of the Gilpin pedigrees & a descendant of her brother wrote a book with lots of useful evidence within.
My children are distinctly uninterested & tell me off when I attempt to share my latest snippets, but older members of the family have been very interested and engaged in my discoveries. Friends fall into two distinct camps, some enjoy hearing about the 'juicier' characters, others have made it clear I shouldn't even mention the subject. Each to their own :)
-
Most people seem to be uninterested in general.
I think you're right. And that doesn't just apply to those who have no interest in family history. OH and I are both doing our respective families, but I'm not particularly interested in his research, and vice versa. BUT we do get together over problems! ;)
-
Wills can be great for pre 1800 research but only about a quarter of our ancestors left wills. Even ones who had a bit of money may have come to a private agreement. I have a few ancestors who were tradesmen who never nipped off down the probate office/courts.
-
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
-
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'
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
This is the research that Pharma refers to.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01lse/ (http://www.rootschat.com/links/01lse/)
Based on known number of descendants of Edward III, estimates of population size and mathematical modelling.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
myfamily tree has several dukes in it mostly Campbell',s hamiltons, Lord Forbes and just as many people who have worked as tanners, tailors travelling ones as sheriffs running estates for their laird as in William laidlaw.who was sheriff for the dukes of Buccleuch/Scott family even found a couple of service together her surname was baron I cannot remember his name.unless it was the sameand also distillery workers who took up gsardening as a ast-time when laid off sometimes fo themselves and also for others.
-
Ancestors who lead very fruitful lives will always be more interesting than ones who never ventured more than a mile from their birthplace and were a labourer all their lives. Although they are still an ancestor, and they helped feed the country with their ag lab work.
Ancestors who lead very fruitful lives also tend to leave a better paper trail!
Something to bear in mind when we think about what we'll leave behind ourselves.
-
in reply to the person ho suggested that they should bury us with a toe stuck out just in case anyone wants to do a DNA test in future years. I have a tray which states and I quote
to my critics:
when I'm in a sober mood I worry, work and think
when i'm in a drunken mood I gamble play and dink,
but when my moods are over.
and my time has come to pass. I hope I'm buried upside down, so the world
may kiss my ass.
-
Marcie I do so like your poem.
I am new to the forum having started very late due to the fact of being told "you won't get anywhere as your grandfather was an orphan" but thirty years later I started.
Our children are not interested, they just pay me lip service when I inform them of a relation of long ago.
We are off to Northampton Thursday as I have found out that the Dixon's were in a village called Kings Cliffe and many were wood turners.
But I can at least document the information and in years to come someone might say "I'm glad old Great Grandad Dixon did that.