Matrilineal line

[GordonD]

I was rereading an article called Daughters of Eve in the June issue of Practical Family History. In it the author talks about tracing back through the mother each time. He states in the line that while many people concentrate on the male line it is the female line, without meaning to be disrespectful to our female ancestors, that we can be 100% sure about as over lots of generations a "non-paternity event" may have taken place.

The Queen's matrilineal line goes back 5 generations whereas Queen Victoria's could be traced back 28 generations. Prince Philip is linked to Queen Victoria through a maternal line so his is 30 generations.

The author says during writing the article that he posted a topic on how far back the matrilineal line in an internet genealogy list (don't think it was on RootsChat as couldn't find a topic on it). The highest he got was 9 generations.

I think a lot of us on here are more interested in learning more about what the lives of our ancestors than simply collecting earlier and earlier names but I was wondering how far back we have got on this line. Are we as far back as the Queen or can anybody go back further?

The author of the article went back five generations. If I use my gran as starting point (born the year before the Queen to even out the generations) I can definitely go back 5 generations(from my gran's mother : Agnes Tulloch Cowan Tripney, Mary Ann Barclay Campbell, Agnes Tulloch Cowan, Susan Gibb, Agnes Tulloch) and I have got a marriage date for Agnes Tulloch's mum Susan Alexander(although this is the only piece of info got on her).

Gordon

PS My family on this side seem to have taken the Scottish naming pattern to a new level with the eldest daughter being given the full name of her mum's mum as her forenames. My mum was glad that her parents went for the forenames Agnes Tripney rather than the full Agnes Tulloch Cowan Tripney!

[jinks]

This is how my Paternal Grandfather researched
family history over twenty years ago for the same
reasons.

So I actually knew of my connection to the surname
Hargreaves before I found it.

from himself Jackson, Eddleston, Hargreaves

Do not know how many generations I can go back
on maternal each time I will check.

I do not JUST concentrate on the Paternal, I have
better results on my Maternal Line.

My Mother was originally a Pye, her mother was
originally a Singleton, her mother was originally
a Fletcher, her mother was originally an Eccles.
but I do that for every line.

So every generation I get more, and more
surnames to look for.

Jinks

 

[sarah]

This post made me check my own, from my Great Grandmother I can go back a further 3 and I am back in North Wales.

I research all lines, some faster than others. I can not understand when people concentrate on just one line ? perhaps I am just so interested to know what they were doing and how they were

Gordon perhaps you should start a poll then you can find out how we are all doing on our maternal line.

Sarah

[GordonD]

I've been trying to do all my lines as well. Due to my research mainly being in Scotland found the all the maternal lines easier to verify as they were often known by their maiden names on census returns and the fact can search death certificates by both maiden and married name.

I think the author's surprise was that he could get to the same point as someone as someone who we think of having well document origins i.e the Queen. Some of my generations more closely spaced so my earliest is prob around 20-30 years later than the Queen in terms of birth (Queen's on this line 1744 birth from her marriage I would estimate mine to be 1760-1770 although not verified).

How do you start a poll on a thread?

Gordon

[Lambendsor (aka IGS)]

Beggars can't be choosers, so I'm happy to learn anything about any of my lines. But I DO have a fascination with matrilineal descent.  And wasn't it through mitochondrial DNA that it was finally proven that Anna Anderson wasn't Princess Anastasia, after all? For me, though, it's been confounding - can't find a marriage certificate, not sure if the families on the censuses really ARE my family, the surname has too many variations, etc. etc. And this is only for my ggg-grandmother, Sarah (nee ) HULME born somewhere around Wilmslow or Knutsford, Cheshire, circa 1809. Well, I'll keep happily digging.

[Arranroots]

How do you start a poll on a thread?

On your first post of this thread, you will find a button at the top right "Poll +".

You can add a poll by clicking on this button. 

kind regards, Arranroots 

[Gadget]

I've always been a great matrilineal fan.

Unfortunately, I get my mother,then Parry, Jones, Jones and then they seem to disappear into the Berwyns , probably into the merched/ferched - takes me back to the  1780s though

However, I've done all the other matrilineals as well - my father's mother's line is Mates, Jones, Lee, Jones. Then full stop again somewhere in the Berwyns.

Try the other's -  grandfather's line - granddad, Wilson, Burgess,Carson, McCrea or Porter. I have to follow up these two then, just to check. This a bit different, Western Kircudbright or Wigtown 

etc., etc.


Gadget

[liverpool annie]

I found this to help you work it out !! ..... !!

http://www.umanitoba.ca/anthropology/tutor/descent/unilineal/matri01.html

Annie 

[MarieC]

I research all lines.  But thinking about my mother's mother's family, we have got that back to about 1189!  Well, it is a cousin who has been doing that particular part of the family, and she has had the good luck to find someone who had extensively researched part of that line.  It includes a couple of convicts here in Australia, and goes back to people who came over with the Normans!!!!

So I've voted for 9+.  I don't think it matters which line you are doing, it is where you get lucky!

MarieC