My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.

[jettejjane]

29th cousin? I don't have anyone further away than 6th cousin and those are from the Skelceys, which is a very rare name. In all other lines I don't go further than 5th cousin. Reason is, I don't fully trust anything before registrations and censuses - too little evidence, and as the OP posts, you often have a choice. With Davies, Morris, Lloyd in my tree, there are a lot of options.

Finding a gateway ancestor so soon is, dare I say it, lucky. I've not found one in decades of searching and have given up. I put my direct ancestors(only) into a Geni tree (a site I distrust anyway) and got zilch in the way of matches. Not even the fantasists link to me.

Chris

I think we are singing from the same sheet, lol. I can’t trust anything before registration or census, and even they can be misleading. I love your last comment, made me smile. 

Nice to see I am not alone in my views in most of the replies here. Been an interesting thread.

[chris_49]

BTW  -  Not an attack on Jamie, but I'd be looking for some corroboration on that noble lineage

[coombs]

Yes, always check it for yourself.

With most of your ancestors though, yes it does get harder the further back you go even during the census and BMD era. Especially ones who died before the 1851 census but were alive and well in 1841, and put the dreaded "No" for whether born in county or not. And when their surname is Smith, like my James Smith of Oxford, who died in 1849 and put no for born in county of residence. He could have been from Cornwall, or Cumberland or even born in my village of residence in Norfolk for all I know. 

[Annie65115]

Unfortunately even "published works" get things wrong, especially ones that were published sometime ago. I know of 2 instances in my tree -

1. My direct line ancestor was mayor of an English town during the Regency period. The council website of that town lists all their previous mayors, with small bios of many. However it seems to have mixed up my ancestor with his son, and says that he died in the 1840s in a particular village. He didn't -- he died in a few years earlier, in his own bed in the town centre. I know this- I've got a copy of his death certificate and I've read newspaper reports of the inquest.

2. A more distantly related (to me) lass married a much older man in the 1780s. The groom's family tree is in Burke's peerage, so my distant relative and their children are too. However, the bride's father is incorrect-- they've used the name of her stepfather. I am certain of this due to family wills.

Meanwhile, I'm proud to announce that I'm sure I can trump you all! One wet winter weekend, with nothing better to do, I worked out that I am related to Prince William -- hold your breath -- he is the 5th great-nephew of the wife of the 2nd gt-grandfather of the husband of my 4th cousin x1 removed    I knew you'd all be impressed! 

[rlw254]

I have a Redman line too. Mine left England for Barbados in the mid-17th/early-18th century. Paper trail to someone born early 1700s, some educated guesses after that. Tough to cross the pond no matter what century you're in.

[chris_49]

Meanwhile, I'm proud to announce that I'm sure I can trump you all! One wet winter weekend, with nothing better to do, I worked out that I am related to Prince William -- hold your breath -- he is the 5th great-nephew of the wife of the 2nd gt-grandfather of the husband of my 4th cousin x1 removed    I knew you'd all be impressed! 

Well, my 5th cousin married a woman who'd previously married Sir Ronald Armstrong-Jones, father (through his first marriage) of Lord Snowdon. In the Peerage and independently checked. Doesn't count, I'm afraid.

[jettejjane]

I have a Redman line too. Mine left England for Barbados in the mid-17th/early-18th century. Paper trail to someone born early 1700s, some educated guesses after that. Tough to cross the pond no matter what century you're in.

What a coincidence I have one supposedly who went to Virginia mid 1600’s no proof the guy there is my ancestor.  However my gt x 3 emigratedc1820 to Indiana and thankfully lots of records tomlrove it.

[jamie300]

Well, I see different levels of tree. I have my verified tree which goes up to my 3xG grand parents. I research this for cause and age of death, which might actually be practically relevant to my family's health, and also for locations which broadly speaking tend to remain static beyond that point and along with occupations can yield interesting anecdotes.

Beyond that, of course lots can't be verified, even genuine historical documents may disguise all sorts of goings on. However that doesn't mean you can't find great interest in the supposed tree. For example I got back to Francis Kinnersley who married the daughter of MP Walter Bagot in the early seventeenth century. Turns out that a collection of letters written between these two have formed the basis of much research into the social relations of the time: https://collation.folger.edu/2014/03/aphorism-therapy-or-how-to-cope-with-dishonest-relatives/

Sure, Francis Kinnersley might not actually be the 7xg grandfather of my great-grandmother Clara Kinneresley, but it seems more likely than not on the balance of probabilities. I don't need absolute proof in order to enjoy thinking about how Francis's behavior and written demands of his father-in-law in the 1620s might have contributed to his family's consequent descent into the working class.

[pharmaT]

All this talk of "name collectors" is really getting me down.  In total I have just over 6000 people in my tree.  I have been researching my direct line and the paternal lines of my daughters so that I have it to pass onto them.  Granted some people are just a name atm but that is because my research is a work in progress so I just don't have the information yet.  I look at my direct line first then start adding siblings on each generation, I record the birth and death of siblings, and marriage if applicable.  I am now working the lines forward. I do this not because I want to have as many names as possible but for the following reasons: 1.Ironically because I consider family history about more than just names and  what children, siblings etc someone has is part of their life  2. I have learned that researching collateral lines can throw up interesting information about the lives my direct ancestors eg my 4x grt gran's fortunes were improved when she was granted my 4 x grt uncle's army pension and another direct was employed by his brother in law.  3. This is my hobby and I am addicted to the research process so it gives me some enjoyment.

As I said I do try and find out as much about each individual's lives as possible but there are some disclaimers. 1 for some people in my tree I have not, as yet found out much about their lives despite trying.  As long as I have evidence that they existed I add them to my tree, record what that evidence is and hope that at some point in the future other sources will become available.  2 there are people on my tree whom I have established exist as in 1 above and recorded as such but haven't done much research on yet. Researching them is on my to do list.  As I already mentioned my tree is a work in progress and as it's m hobby I like that I have lots to research 3 A lot of my research is in Scotland.  From 1855 onwards Scottish marriage certificates give both parents of the bride and groom.  I record these for all the marriages that have these certificates.  I view it as another way of establishing for example which Elizabeth Jones married into the family.  I record that the information is just from the marriage certificates as I am fully aware that sometimes people lied about their father's name in particular.  Although these parents are included in my count I am unlikely to research them unless I suspect that my blood relatives married siblings or cousins and I want to test that out.

I do not have my tree back to 1000s, I have no gateway ancestors that I am aware of.  I never blindly accept hints on Ancestry, I never copy from the trees of others. I do do my own research, I consider that there is no such thing as too many sources, I consider other possible explanations for my findings and examine all possible hypotheses to the best of my ability.  I believe that I have got as far as I have because I have been doing it so long, the wonders of Scotland's people Centres which allow access to a lot of records in one day in quite a cost effective way. That before the advent of Scotland's People Centres I was able to visit New Register House several times which although not as fast as SP did allow for several certificates to be viewed in one day in order to find the correct ones.  Also the layout of Scottish certificates makes cross referencing a lot easier as it provides more information.

I do not have my tree back to the 1100s as I have already said but with big families the numbers soon mount up.  I will do another post to show how this worked out in my tree so that i don't exceed the post length limit.