Author Topic: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.  (Read 5202 times)

Offline Guy Etchells

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,217
    • View Profile
Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« Reply #18 on: Friday 20 November 20 16:47 GMT (UK) »

So agree with all you say,  I call these tree owners with thousands of names "name collectors".  Plus it can be very confusing for novice researchers who see a tree and believe, thankfully I got wise to the fact that I should check and double check through this site.

Sorry but that remark disgusts me, that is what archivists used to call family historians when they tried to access records to back up their research. It is one of the reasons why some trees are not properly research as the family historian got embarrassed being overlooked and talked down to when they tried to research properly at the time when research meant travelling to the archive and researching in person, rather than clicking a few buttons on a computer.

Some archivists even refused to allow those researchers to even access the records because they thought the researchers were not worthy of looking at them.
It makes me ashamed to even think a fellow family historian would use those words.

With much anguish,
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

Offline jettejjane

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,108
  • Dad - 9 times Mayor of Arundel
    • View Profile
Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« Reply #19 on: Friday 20 November 20 17:14 GMT (UK) »

So agree with all you say,  I call these tree owners with thousands of names "name collectors".  Plus it can be very confusing for novice researchers who see a tree and believe, thankfully I got wise to the fact that I should check and double check through this site.

Sorry but that remark disgusts me, that is what archivists used to call family historians when they tried to access records to back up their research. It is one of the reasons why some trees are not properly research as the family historian got embarrassed being overlooked and talked down to when they tried to research properly at the time when research meant travelling to the archive and researching in person, rather than clicking a few buttons on a computer.

Some archivists even refused to allow those researchers to even access the records because they thought the researchers were not worthy of looking at them.
It makes me ashamed to even think a fellow family historian would use those words.

With much anguish,
Guy

You have your opinion I have mine. However the owner of this tree now has all the means at his disposal , as you said , to check it out on the internet etc.  as I have done.   In my  opinion there is no excuse for getting the easy to find facts wrong.  I will always listen if someone tells me I have an error on my tree and check it out. When I have mentioned errors on other Redman trees I do not talk down to the owners.  I offer my finds to help them. If the owner of this particular tree contacted me with proof I would listen and be gracious and accept I was wrong calling him/her a name collector. Until such time comes ...............

Redman, Jupp, Brockhurst of West Sussex
Moore County Down. Redman of Posey, Indiana, USA Emigrated 1820

Offline coombs

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,152
  • Research the dead....forget the living.
    • View Profile
Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« Reply #20 on: Friday 20 November 20 22:33 GMT (UK) »
I always like to make sure I access records to back up my research and have spent many, many times confirming lines and linking the odd ancestor back to landed gentry, and then an actual gateway ancestor, through a heck of a lot of meticulous research that i have spent ages on. For anyone to say all of that is just "name collecting" or "guesswork" it would be quite annoying, and would actually sound like they are jealous.
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 jettejjane

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,108
  • Dad - 9 times Mayor of Arundel
    • View Profile
Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« Reply #21 on: Saturday 21 November 20 09:41 GMT (UK) »
I always like to make sure I access records to back up my research and have spent many, many times confirming lines and linking the odd ancestor back to landed gentry, and then an actual gateway ancestor, through a heck of a lot of meticulous research that i have spent ages on. For anyone to say all of that is just "name collecting" or "guesswork" it would be quite annoying, and would actually sound like they are jealous.

For the record I am not jealous . Nor am I saying every single tree that goes back to medieval times is incorrect.  I just find it hard to believe.  I donít yearn for nobility in my tree . I am happy with my proven finds. When this tree owner cannot get the simplest facts right it doesnít really annoy   I would like to think he.she would be pleased with my offer help. I would be.  What does slightly  annoy is those I have actually tried to help that still go their own way and chose not to believe me with my proof in the tin box of family papers. They are happy though to put my pictures on their tree together with the wrong dates,  for others to add to theirs. I donít have a proper tree online and these pics were sent to one person by email and now appear on many trees.

Redman, Jupp, Brockhurst of West Sussex
Moore County Down. Redman of Posey, Indiana, USA Emigrated 1820

Offline pharmaT

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,241
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« Reply #22 on: Sunday 22 November 20 08:04 GMT (UK) »
What did pee me off was that he had the death of our shared gtx 2 Grandfather George Redman b. 1800 wrong. He just picked a Redman in Sussex who died in 1876 with obviously no checks.  I did find this death when I started but ruled him out and it wasnít that difficult. My George appeared on 1841 and 1851 census with family in Arundel then disappeared. Then I discovered through researching my gt x 1 Grandfather his son William on 1861 still in Arundel same address, but mother had remarried. Was easy to find death in 1852 in Arundel. I got death certificate. This was at start if my research when I was a total novice.

Having something a lot more recent and more easily verifiable would make me more doubtful.  I would say that that if you have the right ancestors it's not impossible to get back to 1100s,not easy but not impossible.  So I think some people out there will be able to get their trees that far back.

Before anyone gives me grief I do not have my tree that far back, nor do I see it happening with my tree.
Campbell, Dunn, Dickson, Fell, Forest, Norie, Pratt, Somerville, Thompson, Tyler among others

Offline jamie300

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 43
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« Reply #23 on: Sunday 22 November 20 09:04 GMT (UK) »
I traced my own tree back to William the Conqueror quite easily. Everyone was working class in the nineteenth century but then I found a route into a minor landed gentry family (Kinnersley) and soon found published works that detailed their genealogy. Although these didn't mention a royal connection I followed some of the marriages sideways and up into the aristocracy (de Ferrers), finally linking to Robert, the 1st Earl of Gloucester, bastard son of Henry I. 

Offline jettejjane

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,108
  • Dad - 9 times Mayor of Arundel
    • View Profile
Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« Reply #24 on: Sunday 22 November 20 10:19 GMT (UK) »

Having something a lot more recent and more easily verifiable would make me more doubtful.  I would say that that if you have the right ancestors it's not impossible to get back to 1100s,not easy but not impossible.  So I think some people out there will be able to get their trees that far back.

Before anyone gives me grief I do not have my tree that far back, nor do I see it happening with my tree.

Yes, and not for one minute am I saying all trees on a......y are incorrect. Just this one and a few others containing my line. Of course there are those who can get their trees back a long way.. I am not stupid enough to think it is impossible just because I am have difficulty doing so.  I am sure there are many many researchers who do not put their trees on the internet. I can only base my opinion on those on the A site. I donít have complete version of mine online.
Redman, Jupp, Brockhurst of West Sussex
Moore County Down. Redman of Posey, Indiana, USA Emigrated 1820

Offline Skoosh

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,394
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« Reply #25 on: Sunday 22 November 20 10:33 GMT (UK) »
Only your gt, gt grannie knows who your gt, gt grandfather was, maybe not even then ;D
Taking a lang pedigree of 1,000 years at face value is a bit daft. Many of these so-called royals were nothing of the sort. DNA proof required, starting with the present lot!

Skoosh.

Offline jettejjane

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,108
  • Dad - 9 times Mayor of Arundel
    • View Profile
Re: My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.
« Reply #26 on: Sunday 22 November 20 10:58 GMT (UK) »
Only your gt, gt grannie knows who your gt, gt grandfather was, maybe not even then ;D
Taking a lang pedigree of 1,000 years at face value is a bit daft. Many of these so-called royals were nothing of the sort. DNA proof required, starting with the present lot!

Skoosh.

Yes that is true. My grandfather was a great family man as was his father before him. Hence the vast collection of family papers. There are many memories that both gentlemen kept alive . My father too related them to me, if I had known I was going to start this journey I would have paid more attention or written it down. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We take everything on trust and all know that census and other records are open to mistranscription which can lead down wrong roads. I am confident enough to say I go back to great x 4 , and will check and re check in case something has turned up or I have something glaringly obviously wrong. The prime example is following the 2 ladies born to 2 brothers same name, same date same ish location. Sadly the wrong lady appears on the tree I found. It was pointed out to by by a fellow research buddy and was able to work it out easily  once I realised. I was happy for his input. Thatís why I wrongly think other tree owners would accept help not take the blinkered attitude they are always right.
Redman, Jupp, Brockhurst of West Sussex
Moore County Down. Redman of Posey, Indiana, USA Emigrated 1820