How far back have you got?

[Meelystar]

Going sideways can definitely be interesting.
I think really the thing I like most is putting my ancestors within historical context: Understanding what was going on at that point politically and socially and how that affected them; researching the area they were living in - what could they smell and see from their front door? finding old photos or illustrations of that area, looking at the family they had near by that they might have seen regularly; what their occupation entailed; what tragedies and successes befell them.  Trying to get the merest hint of the rich tapestry that makes up human lives.

[coombs]

Always good to go sideways, it can name direct ancestors in wills, and siblings you never knew of. It can confirm or deny a likely ancestor. I am sure many of us have taken a leap of faith from time to time based on strong circumstantial evidence, but always remain cautious at the same time, and add a note. I think WDYTYA did that with Danny Dyer's Charles Gosnold, they found no obvious evidence that he was the son of Tendring, but Charles was apprenticed as a weaver in 1752, son of Ann Gosnold, (Tendring's wife was Ann, and he must have died by 1752) and Charles had a son with Tendring as a middle name. I think it is good enough.

There will often be a record somewhere, many of the wills are indexed by testator but have no beneficiary indexes. Essex wills has a Beneficiary index but only back to 1675, and a different surname to the testator. The fabulous PCC wills databases have no beneficiary indexes, but imagine how long it would take to create one. Although a google book search can reveal beneficiaries in transcribed wills.

[M_ONeill]

The furthest I've gone back on a confirmed paper trail is the 1718 marriage of my 8x great grandparents Richard Harding and Alice Hyatt in Great Packington, Warwickshire.

Given the date of their marriage I estimate that they were born sometime in the 1690s, but have no hard evidence. No part of my tree has been confirmed back to the 17th century, at least not on paper.

I have a hunch that the Smallman branch of my tree from Shropshire could potentially be taken back to the 17th century, as there's a mid-century will from a Richard Smallman, yeoman farmer of Monkhopton. Given that my confirmed Smallman ancestors were also yeoman farmers of Monkhopton a mere generation or so later, I suspect a link - but don't know how to confirm it.

This is of course all in the English quarter of my tree. The other three are Irish, so obviously the branches are far more curtailed!

[guest189040]

As I state in my last post I am currently going sideways, but what I am doing is generation by generation.

It started with me trying to assign names to an image that is in an inherited family album.  my GGGrandparents are in the image and we have other images of other people so know it is a family gathering, in Great Horton, Bradford c1890.  So I have more names for this generation than there are people in the image but alas only three that I know who is who.

Its good to also set a target and work towards it, so these are primarily the Collins and Thompson family

[rlw254]

My farthest is a 1669 marriage in Sicily, but this line is unique because of the records available digitally. The rest of my tree hovers around people born in the mid-to-late 1700s. With half my tree being made of Irish famine immigrants to America, the possibility of getting back to a townland is quite daunting. Then once you can get there you have to deal with poor record availability 

[coombs]

You can get back a long way through gateway ancestors which are royalty and gentry but also you can still get back a long way without a gateway ancestor, if they were well to do clothiers, merchants, mayors, Alderman, vicars etc, and left wills.

Land disputes, inheritances etc can be handy, and sometimes the plaintiff in the dispute is said to be the grandson of the person who bought the land. Also a group of family members can inherit land.

[M_ONeill]

Well, clearly my posting in this thread has appeased the genealogy gods. Today I looked at a somewhat neglected part of my family tree and got hold of a thread that absolutely rocketed through the generations to some ancestors on the cusp of the 17th century and with good prospects to trace back.

I have no idea how I missed the thread before. It may simply be that when I was last in that part of the tree I was too focused on an adjoining branch! 

[coombs]

Well done.

It all depends on luck, some lines you can get back a long, long way, others you can barely get further back then the early 1800s. I think we all are sadly related to Danny Dyer have gateway ancestors, it is a case of finding them.

[Finley 1]

Should I now be worried that I link to Henry Dundass? 

xin