Yea right - traced back to 430 BC

[Mike_E]

While looking at possible link to my tree on a well known Ancestry site.....

Found a link which would take my family back to
Cymryw Camber
Birth: ABT 0430 BC

What kind of idiot posts this rubbish. Iwas going to sent them a mail, but Iw ould have ended up just wanting to throttle them.

I just wish there were rules to stop this sort of junk being uploaded, But I guess if the idiot has paid his/her money they could link their tree to Mickey Mouse if they wanted.

Mike

[Ladkyis]

They probably already have AND they are trying to find who to contact for the inheritance, I mean as a film star Mickey must have left a fair chunk of money.

Ann

[Neil Wilson]

Well wouldn't you Adam and Eve it. That is how far back my tree goes. :D

[daleaway]

One of my cuzzies has gone one better. See "Recent Breakthrough" on this page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jglanville/genes.htm


Dale in New Zealand

[Diane Grant-Salmon]

That's great ....... Jay certainly has a sense of humour! Well, it made me laugh this morning anyway! ;)

[MythicalMarian]

Searching through the old threads, I am glad Diane has raised this topic, because it has to be my worst of all pet hates! Apart from Family History my other great love is Roman History and the number of trees I have seen with the Empress Livia Drusilla in them is astounding! Some bright soul actually claimed to be the 17th great-grandaughter of Livia (wife of Augustus 58BC-29AD). Is that only 17 generations guys and gals?

I've also seen lots of people with Anne Boleyn in their trees. It really is ludicrous. I think some people really do start this hobby in the hopes of linking themselves to some world famous figure. As for me - and no doubt the rest of us on here - I'm quite thrilled with my ag. labs and cotton weavers, thank you very much! At least I know they're really mine.

[KateJones]

Too true! For me so much of the interest is getting a real insight into what lives were like for our ancestors. I want to know who these people were, what they did, what difficulties they faced. I love to see real signatures (or more often marks) on wills, or visit the buildings they lived in and the land they farmed. It's a strange, but powerful, feeling to handle the prayer books they owned, or to see these people looking out of faded photographs. I love to solve the problems and inconsistences - my Jones were farmers and publicans, but why were there two very large pubs in such a tiny village? The answer explains why my ancestor left the village - it's on a drove road, and the coming of the railways meant that cattle went by rail, drying up the income from the drovers - so the sons went on the railway.

I would much rather be completely secure in knowing that my facts were right, than artificially construct 'famous' ancestors. I'm left wondering just how insecure these people are that they feel it's necessary to bask in the 'glory' of their forebears.
Regards

[MythicalMarian]

Too true! For me so much of the interest is getting a real insight into what lives were like for our ancestors. I want to know who these people were, what they did, what difficulties they faced. I love to see real signatures (or more often marks) on wills, or visit the buildings they lived in and the land they farmed. It's a strange, but powerful, feeling to handle the prayer books they owned, or to see these people looking out of faded photographs. I love to solve the problems and inconsistences - my Jones were farmers and publicans, but why were there two very large pubs in such a tiny village? The answer explains why my ancestor left the village - it's on a drove road, and the coming of the railways meant that cattle went by rail, drying up the income from the drovers - so the sons went on the railway.

I would much rather be completely secure in knowing that my facts were right, than artificially construct 'famous' ancestors. I'm left wondering just how insecure these people are that they feel it's necessary to bask in the 'glory' of their forebears.
Regards

My thoughts entirely! And reading through your post, Kate, I see that you have learned something of the history of the village your ancestors lived in through your own careful research. IMHO it's a real achievement to discover a gem like this about the closing of the drove road. Let's face it - we all know what happened to Anne Boleyn - what is there left to discover? But I'll bet not many knew about the effect of the railway on your little village. It's this sort of thing that makes family history so wonderful.

[Wilkes_ml]

On a similar theme, I do worry when a contact says " I've traced my wife's Smith branch back to King such and such in the 14th century".

I think "Wow- what an achievement in a year!" I've been researching 18 years and can't get past that awful writing in the 1750's!!! It makes me rather dubious of the accuracy of other's work when there seems to be such an obvious leap back so far and so quickly.

[MythicalMarian]

On a similar theme, I do worry when a contact says " I've traced my wife's Smith branch back to King such and such in the 14th century".

I think "Wow- what an achievement in a year!" I've been researching 18 years and can't get past that awful writing in the 1750's!!! It makes me rather dubious of the accuracy of other's work when there seems to be such an obvious leap back so far and so quickly.

The only rider I'd add to this is that I did have an awful lot of luck in tracing my Stokes family in Cheadle back to the 1720s in just one register in two months in November 1985. But this was because they were the only Stokes family in Cheadle prior to the 1800s and they behaved themselves for me and stayed put! However, since the appearance of the first of us (a matriarch, not a patriarch) on the seating plan for Cheadle Church in 1720, I haven't discovered another thing before that. I haven't found any link to the other two major Stokes families in Cheshire so far, and am resigned to the fact that they probably migrated from another county. It will take years to search, but you'll still see me peering at some microfilm or other in my 90s! It would have been very easy to 'assume' my Stokeses and the huge family of Stokeses down in Malpas/Bickley (Cheshire) were related, but I honestly don't think they are. This latter family can be traced back to 1564 with certainty and possibly to the 13th century before that, but I'm not interested as I'm sure they're not mine.

It is as everyone has said, it's much more satisfying to know for sure and be grateful for the ones we do discover instead of moaning about the ones who remain hidden.

Another pet hate, while we're on the subject, is when you find a link to one of your researched surnames on Tribal Pages or somewhere, go to investigate and find out from the intro that 'My Tree has 55,768 names'. I just don't bother investigating further when I see that.

[Jan1954]

Another pet hate, while we're on the subject, is when you find a link to one of your researched surnames on Tribal Pages or somewhere, go to investigate and find out from the intro that 'My Tree has 55,768 names'. I just don't bother investigating further when I see that.

The pre-programmed introduction on Tribal Pages pulls that information through automatically.

I have a rather large number of names on my tree, but many of them are from one particular area and show how most of the families intermarried over approximately 80 years. It's rather like a village (villages) study.

Yes, I'm related to them by marriage (several times in some cases...) but I would never consider them to be "my" family.

Mind you, it makes it interesting when I find one of "my" bodies popping up in a census and enumerated as "nephew" when you know darned well that they're not really! :D

[suedent]

I have a rather large number of names on my tree, but many of them are from one particular area and show how most of the families intermarried over approximately 80 years. It's rather like a village (villages) study.

Yes, I'm related to them by marriage (several times in some cases...) but I would never consider them to be "my" family.

I have a similar thing with Polperro families, & I'm beginning to work on Pelynt families too.

In the case of Polperro there are so many people with similar names & there was so much intermarrying that it's one way of sorting out who was who.

It can come in very handy. I was in the LDS FHC in Sunderland a few years ago & a gentleman was pointed to me as the "Cornish expert" (possibly because I was the only one with any Cornish roots). He had a relative born in Polperro & I could go to my database & show him exactly where he fitted in. I also knew exactly which members of the society to put him in touch with.

[MythicalMarian]

Hey, don't get me wrong, girls - I have over 2,000 in my own tree, but I only ever add people if they are blood descendants. As I have been tracing all my lines as far as I can for over 20 years, this has resulted in many names, but I would think that the trees that have such huge branches contain a lot of non-collaterals.

I don't know how you do it, but for instance, if I have a daughter of one of my main granddads or grandmas (I call them this as a convenient shorthand, rather than keep stating how many 'greats'), I will trace their marriage and their children, because those children and grandchildren etc. will be blood relatives. What I don't do is trace the ancestry or siblings' descendants of the 'non-familial' spouse. For instance, my recent Small research began with my known 'ancestress' Elizabeth Stokes marrying Richard Small in Cheadle. Now, I would want to trace all her children and grandchilderen because they are all descendants of Elizabeth's father John (my own 5xgreat grandfather) and therefore blood relations. Richard Small's ancestry, however, is of no interest to me personally, as the blood tie with the Stokes family only begins with his marriage to Elizabeth. (Hope I've explained that OK).

But I do know of people on Tribal Pages and at Ancestry who would trace all Richard's brothers and sisters and his ancestors - which to me, would only be meaningful if one was descended directly from Richard.

If I were to trace the ancestry and descendants of every spouse who has married in....well, it doesn't bear thinking about. When I have had contact with someone who has glady offered to share info and relatives' names, I am careful to only include those who are blood related.

Does this make sense? Or am I being too pernickity?

[Pam Downes]

Makes perfect sense to me, as I do think you have to draw the line somewhere otherwise you could end up wasting your time searching for some obscure sister of the cousin of the uncle of the twice-removed great aunt of the neighbour's dog. :)
I collect direct grannies and granddads, plus their siblings, and the children of the siblings, and the children of the children of the siblings, etc, because however diluted it is in 2008, we are blood relatives with a common ancestor. But when it comes to people marrying into the family I just make a note of them, and possibly their parents and siblings. But that's only for my own notes, because I'm not techie enough to put any of my stuff on the web.
Pam

[Roger47]

Not so fast Mike
my 10000 times Great grandfather, had the cave next door and used to pop in for the old Dyno Burger wasn't his surname Donald and I believe he hailed from over the border

Amazing what some will do to seek a history how fortunate we are

[Geoffers]

I have over 2,000 in my own tree, but I only ever add people if they are blood descendants.

You have over 2,000 descendents???????

[michaelpipe]

2000!!!! Puts any rabbit to shame!

Michael

[Margaret08]

Can't remember the exact wording, but wasn't there a joke doing the rounds some time ago that went something like: I've traced my line back to William the Conqueror, I just have about 200 years in the middle to sort out?:confused:

Margaret

[Margaret08]

I've just remembered about this posting on a software forum, hope that I don't get into trouble for copying it:-

"My problem on xxxxxxxxxxx is annoying, but not yet debilitating--XX freezes after I conduct a few merges. I must restart it. A Microsoft WIndow pops up asking me if I want to send MS a message about the problem. I have 52,460 people in the database, 26652 Families, 72762 events, and 9956 places. Perhaps, the volume is one of the issues?

Backgorund--My xxxxxxxxxxx work includes a line from my wife's mother that is fairly fully populated back into the 1600s. Then, 4 lines take it to English and Scottish nobility and royalty. The English and Scottish royal lines tie her line to most of European Royalty, and one line, if you believe the antiquity research, trend into Cypress, Jerusalem, Persia, and the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs. Thus, when I am working on one of the older lines, newer research provides links to other people I already have I the database. I am constantly merging people as I discover they are the same folk -- many names in these older time periods vary in spelling from source to source."

Makes my Ag Labs from 1800 look a bit pathetic.

Margaret

[Barnzzz]

and I thought finding the chairman of Hovis was exciting. I think I'll give up now.....

Sue

[Browneyes]

Hold on a minute...

1. Is there a carved stone database somewhere? Similar to the Rosetta stone I would imagine...I don't speak or read Sanscrit/Greek/Latin etc unfortunately...oh bother. :D
2. I'm sorry but I prefer history from the bottom up and not from the top down.
3. I'm only just past the 200 mark (people I mean not BC) and still keep finding out things about my grandparents family that I get excited about and am very happy that my little tree occasionally sprouts an odd leaf here and there.
4. How big would the piece of paper be to print a 14 generation tree?
5. Whether it's just a few generations or much more than that I think everyone needs a pat on the back for all their hard work and enthusiasm.

There. That's me done now. :)

[Jan1954]

4. How big would the piece of paper be to print a 14 generation tree?

Use wallpaper. :D

[Guy Etchells]

Hold on a minute...

1. Is there a carved stone database somewhere? Similar to the Rosetta stone I would imagine...I don't speak or read Sanscrit/Greek/Latin etc unfortunately...oh bother. :D
2. I'm sorry but I prefer history from the bottom up and not from the top down.
3. I'm only just past the 200 mark (people I mean not BC) and still keep finding out things about my grandparents family that I get excited about and am very happy that my little tree occasionally sprouts an odd leaf here and there.

I have a number of family history databases. One has 11,182 people and 2,875 marriages on it another 2,577 people and 858 marriages.
I am certainly not a name collector and have detail of some ancestors of the 18th century which even includes height hair colour and colour of eyes etc. Not everyone who has a large tree simply collects names


4. How big would the piece of paper be to print a 14 generation tree?

A simple tree covering 15 generations may be drawn on a sheet of paper A2 in size. This gives names, Christian & surname, dates of B.M.D. (bap., mar. & bur.) + spouse’s details


5. Whether it's just a few generations or much more than that I think everyone needs a pat on the back for all their hard work and enthusiasm.

There. That's me done now. :)

There is no right way or wrong way to compile a tree, it all depends on what the researcher wishes to get from the experience.
Cheers
Guy

[Browneyes]

I am certainly not a name collector and have detail of some ancestors of the 18th century which even includes height hair colour and colour of eyes etc. Not everyone who has a large tree simply collects names


I'm glad you're not just a name collector. To me just sticking to names and dates in a family tree (in my humble opinion) reduces peoples lives between birth and death to a gravestone 'dash' when every one of those people has their own interesting history. All my ancestors' strengths and weaknesses that become apparent through their struggles, determination and/or involvement in their 'worlds' are important to me. They had emotions and worries like anyone else whether it was about job loss or toothache.

I wonder if those that do just collect names and dates would want to be remembered that way too. Perhaps they're not bothered one way or another.

Browneyes.

[beachbaby]

|jumphappy

I am so glad I found this site - you guys are great! I haven't been researching much more than a few years, but have learned to be very suspicious of many people's trees. I wonder if they even look at what they're typing sometimes - one tree I was looking at yesterday had a family member born circa 1750 who's children's dates were in the 1600s - who doesn't notice something like that?

I love finding distant and unknown relatives, have reconnected with people who are only 2nd cousins who didn't know we existed, but I draw the line at making stuff up and looking to connect to "famous" folk. They are dead, so what's the big attraction?

[ash33au]

I actually have a copy of the royal lineage which includes a direct line of my Von Bulow ancestors from Prussia right back to god knows when 'cause I get dizzy trying to scroll back through the generations and have never fullly gone back. The gentleman responsible is an accredited royal historian. Other distant relations have also confirmed the lineage.