Oh the complications of in-breeding!

[Wilkes_ml]

Now I know why certain marriages were considered illegal or banned by the church! Because it causes us so much trouble trying to untangle them! Of course it didn't stop our ancestors of going out of their way to marry their deceased wife's sister etc.

I seem to have got a whole load of them and it's driving me crazy trying to get my head around them!

My ancestor's 23 year old wife died and was buried 3 days after her 40 year old married brother....so what does my ancestor do, but marries his widowed sister-in-law who is 10 years older than him and has a whole brood of children who are not only half siblings to the subsequent children but also cousins I believe.....

Another ancestor married not only one deceased wife's sister, but when she died, he married the next one!

[Indigo_Child]

(Giggling!) MY great-grandfather did the same thing except HE married sister #1, had a bunch of kids and then obviously "invited" sister #2 over to Canada (from Wales) to "visit " (a.k.a. "babysit") Sister #1 dies and g-gpa marries sister #2 and has a bunch of kids. He brought over sister #3 for a "visit" ("babysitting duties?) - family calls it "lining up the next wife"! Fortunately for my blood pressure during genealogical research, sister #2 was a tough lady and managed to outlive him by 30 years (after, we suspect, pushing hubby down the basement stairs. The "accident" was put down to him being drunk). Also fortunately, one of my (step?) cousins (descended from sister #2 while I'm descended from sister #1) is tracing the sister #2 line so she's the one pulling her hair out!

[Nicolina]

I have three families who seemed to enjoy marrying amongst themsleves, and using the same names over and over. I tried to unravel them but as it went on for several generation I just gave up the ghost.

[Indigo_Child]

I can thoroughly relate to that Nicolina! "John, George, Sarah Jane/Mary Jane/Mary Anne (or any other combinations thereof) are particularly liked in my family tree!! I THINK I have some of it unravelled but as you say, sometimes you just have to throw up your hands and mutter nasty things about ancestors who a) used the same names over & over b) who didn't give their children middle names c) who wouldn't stay PUT in one area so that a person at least has a slim hope of keeping them straight!

The only bright spot is when the ancestors give their kids the maiden name of the mother as a middle name! I caught on fairly quickly to the fact that if I was looking for the maiden name of the wife, if their kid was named Edgar ROGERS there were good odds that Mom's maiden surname was Rogers! And THEN I would check the census and see if the wife-to-be lived 3 doors down from my ancestor. Invariably they did. No creativity AT ALL!!

[Nicolina]

at least once in every generation since 1840 a "maiden" name as been used as a middle name in my family and guess what - it's the name of one of the three inter-breeding families. At least they did start using the name Seth, for a change, but they were like a dog with a bone and it bacame as common as all the Marys, Georges etc.

[Indigo_Child]

Ah-h-h... my chuckle for the day!! Isn' it just marvellous when John (b. 1816), has John (1854) who then VERY creatively has John (1876)??! And many of my family tree lived to be 85, 89 even 101 so they all overlap for decades. Not until WWI that the ancestors decided that one more Edith Mary was two too many and changed my Mum's name to "Rosemarie"!! What was it anyways with naming your kids after a deceased sibling/ aunt / uncle whatever? Guess if genealogy was too easy though it wouldn't be any fun, right?

[Wilkes_ml]

at least post 1841, there is the census to help a bit, but I'm working on the early 1700s where a) they didn't stay put b) the family were all baptised as adults, and finally marriage licences appear to be easier to get and they were just as likely to marry in the next County as they were to marry in the next parish (of course they disn't marry in their birth parish!)

I really don't see how people can get back to the 1500s with so much ease when I always seem to get stuck in the early 1700s lol

[cicilysmith]

But you've done very well to get back to the early 1700s. My husband's line is stuck in the 1730s and I am waiting for the DNA results in hope. cicilysmith

[janbooth]

Wills, Wills and more Wills have been my greatest help in getting back to the 16th century. Luckily, my Dad's paternal line used to be (very used to be much to my husband's disgust!) local gentry and the further back you go the more affluent they were, so on some lines there is a wealth of info such as Burke's Landed Gentry, etc purporting to go back to the 13th century but I am still not sure how accurate this lineage is so take it all with a pinch of salt unless I can find corroborative information. However on his maternal line it is a different story and my Mum's maiden name is SMITH!! George, son of John, son of John, etc. etc. It never ceases to amaze me how interbred my Dad's paternal side is - husband says it explains a lot - for example my 3x ggrandfather married his great niece and in one generation of one family I have 3 direct ancestors. Which only goes to prove, as far as I am concerned, that you should follow all twigs on your family tree as you never know where it may lead.

Janet

[Wilkes_ml]

Wills, Wills and more Wills have been my greatest help in getting back to the 16th century.

Yes, wills do come in very useful, but I'm finding that the majority of the "relatives" I'm looking at at the moment are husbandmen (agricultural labourers). I can never find a will when I need one!

And I also have Smiths in my family too (two seperate lines!) , so know how problematic they can be!

now I'm banging my head against the wall as I have about 3 Thomas GREENs all baptised within a couple of years of each other, all in parishes within a few miles of each other