Author Topic: Are most people not interested in family trees?  (Read 11982 times)

Offline Mart 'n' Al

  • RootsChat Leaver
  • RootsChat Pioneer
  • *
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #45 on: Monday 19 March 18 14:56 GMT (UK) »
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

Offline tillypeg

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,004
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #46 on: Monday 19 March 18 15:16 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.

Totally agree, coombs.  Well done you for getting back to that time. :)

Offline coombs

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,460
  • Research the dead....forget the living.
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #47 on: Monday 19 March 18 15:18 GMT (UK) »
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.
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 Kimbrey

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #48 on: Monday 19 March 18 15:52 GMT (UK) »

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


Offline tillypeg

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,004
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #49 on: Monday 19 March 18 17:51 GMT (UK) »
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  :(

Offline iluleah

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,049
  • Zeya who has a plastic bag fetish
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #50 on: Monday 19 March 18 17:54 GMT (UK) »

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!
Leicestershire:Chamberlain, Dakin, Wilkinson, Moss, Cook, Welland, Dobson, Roper,Palfreman, Squires, Hames, Goddard, Topliss, Twells,Bacon.
Northamps:Sykes, Harris, Rice,Knowles.
Rutland:Clements, Dalby, Osbourne, Durance, Smith,Christian, Royce, Richardson,Oakham, Dewey,Newbold,Cox,Chamberlaine,Brow, Cooper, Bloodworth,Clarke
Durham/Yorks:Woodend, Watson,Parker, Dowser
Suffolk/Norfolk:Groom, Coleman, Kemp, Barnard, Alden,Blomfield,Smith,Howes,Knight,Kett,Fryston
Lincolnshire:Clements, Woodend

Offline tillypeg

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,004
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #51 on: Monday 19 March 18 18:31 GMT (UK) »
;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

Offline iluleah

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,049
  • Zeya who has a plastic bag fetish
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #52 on: Monday 19 March 18 19:13 GMT (UK) »
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 ::)
Leicestershire:Chamberlain, Dakin, Wilkinson, Moss, Cook, Welland, Dobson, Roper,Palfreman, Squires, Hames, Goddard, Topliss, Twells,Bacon.
Northamps:Sykes, Harris, Rice,Knowles.
Rutland:Clements, Dalby, Osbourne, Durance, Smith,Christian, Royce, Richardson,Oakham, Dewey,Newbold,Cox,Chamberlaine,Brow, Cooper, Bloodworth,Clarke
Durham/Yorks:Woodend, Watson,Parker, Dowser
Suffolk/Norfolk:Groom, Coleman, Kemp, Barnard, Alden,Blomfield,Smith,Howes,Knight,Kett,Fryston
Lincolnshire:Clements, Woodend

Offline tillypeg

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,004
    • View Profile
Re: Are most people not interested in family trees?
« Reply #53 on: Monday 19 March 18 20:36 GMT (UK) »
it must be something in the water on the east coast ::)

Definitely!  Oh, I forgot to mention the tobacco smuggler in 1884 ;)