How far back do you go?

[Mac in Wisco]

My interest has only been to document my American roots. My research only goes back to the original American immigrants in each family line, although sometimes that research has me contacting folks in Europe for more information. I have had lengthy conversations with a distant cousin in Norway who sent me pictures of the family farm on the lake near Telemark. Once I researched back to those orginal immigrants I started working back down the lines to document all of the descendants. That is where I spend most of my time with this, contacting other families, distant cousins, adding to and sharing my research with them.

 

[Buff Hooligans]

All I know is that my mom's side goes back one generation to Estonia. And my dad's side is farm country in southern Minnesota (Dumfries), from Germany, Scotland and UK.

It wasn't emphasized much in my family though. Pride was in America, not heritage. And I don't have kids, it's not like I needed to carry on any particular genius streak or anything.

 

[Chicabee19]

What I find very interesting and helpful (at least in my own ancestry) is the repeated use of the same first and middle names. The usage helped my prove out several difficult-to-document people in my direct and closely connected lines.

For a long time it was a mystery why a certain first and middle name can be seen over and over in my direct line 4 to 6 generations back. After years of research I eventually ran across information that explained a connection to the original, somewhat infamous, name-holder - most probably related by an illegitimate birth.

 

[Backyard Buddies]

The Internet has been wonderful for family research . . . and has been detrimental all in one. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to use resources such as Ancestry which have provided me with the luxury to search things I'd never be able to do otherwise. But, the downside is that it makes the false trees all the more likely to spread.

I do have my tree online, but only that portion that I've been able to document. (I haven't updated it in a while, mostly due to time.) However, I have my tree set so that no one can download it. If they want that info, they're going to have to painstakingly enter the data line by line. My theory on this is that I've done a lot of work and am meticulous about sourcing my data. It's my hope that if someone finds a name in my tree that matches one in theirs, they'll hijack my data rather than the poorly sourced data. I may be only one voice, but if the correct data can outweigh the faulty data, then I've done my job.

I agree with you MissPrissy, about the LDS records. You have to take them all with a grain of salt, particularly the published trees. Two entries in their records regarding my grandmother are the source that has spread like a disease in the online trees. As far as I know, there is no way to correct it, either. So, putting the correct information online is the only way to do so.

Now, that said, the two day trip I took to SLC was one FUN research trip! There's nothing like hitting a library at the crack of dawn and not coming out except for a few minutes to stuff down some food and run right back in there until they throw you out at the end of the day.

So, who else travels for research? It's one of my favorite things to do and has opened doors for research that otherwise would have been brickwalls.

 

[Backyard Buddies]

Quote:
That was a mystery in my husband's line as well, the same given name used as either a first or middle name for generations. In this case, I eventually traced it back to a surname of an ancestor who died in an 1868 flood in Maryland, along with numerous children and a servant. No one in the family knew the story, but for some reason they just kept naming children by that name. The most recent is a 4 year old grand-nephew. When he gets older, I'll share with him the story of his middle name.

As for those illegitimate births, I've got those as well. In some cases I'm certain I'll never learn the lineage.

I have a name, but I'm just not sure I believe that it's accurate. Even if it is, there's nothing to prove it with. Did I mention that I'm a stickler for documentation??

 

[Chicabee19]

Chicabee19 wrote:

What I find very interesting and helpful (at least in my own ancestry) is the repeated use of the same first and middle names. The usage helped my prove out several difficult-to-document people in my direct and closely connected lines.

For a long time it was a mystery why a certain first and middle name can be seen over and over in my direct line 4 to 6 generations back. After years of research I eventually ran across information that explained a connection to the original, somewhat infamous, name-holder - most probably related by an illegitimate birth.

That was a mystery in my husband's line as well, the same given name used as either a first or middle name for generations. In this case, I eventually traced it back to a surname of an ancestor who died in an 1868 flood in Maryland, along with numerous children and a servant. No one in the family knew the story, but for some reason they just kept naming children by that name. The most recent is a 4 year old grand-nephew. When he gets older, I'll share with him the story of his middle name.

As for those illegitimate births, I've got those as well. In some cases I'm certain I'll never learn the lineage. sad I have a name, but I'm just not sure I believe that it's accurate. Even if it is, there's nothing to prove it with. Did I mention that I'm a stickler for documentation??

I'm pretty sure that without the middle name and newly-released Census records showing that the original name-holder lived in the same neighborhood, we would never have figured it out!​

 

[ole-crone]

I'm a genealogist. I used to teach it and have written a couple of books. We have them all - lines back to Adam and Eve, numerous Royal lines and dead ends. Years of doing research has taught me a few things.

Don't want to pop your bubbles but ... if you found your genealogy online...

Most of the Royal lines are incorrect. If you carefully look at each immigant ancestor you can disprove many of the connections. This is partially because people in the late 19th and early 20th century discovered that they could make a nice income lying to those with enough money to hire them to do research. Men like Gustave Anjou would charge people thousands to give them what they wanted to hear. They would mix the truth with the made up and those reports were often the base of many of the older family genealogies.

The Bible lines are basically made up. One of the most accurate and closely checked lines in the world is Queen Elizabeth's. I think it was Prince Harry who once commented he thought it was interesting so many people can claim an ancestry that goes further back than theirs has been proven. I think their earliest proved ancestor is William the Conquerer (1024). Beyond that is guessing.

I encourage you all to use those online genealogies you found as a roadmap of clues of where to go dig up the truth. Get bitten by the real genealogy bug. Go out there and rather than play 'he who has the most ancestors wins' start learning about the history of your family.

Go one generation at a time. Learn all you can. Go back to the next generation. I'm not saying to never use the internet - but relaize it has limits. You can find some interesting sites based on what others have found, read original census records, land records, wills, visit cemeteries. Meet distant relatives - ask if they have heard of any incorrect genealogies. As you jump back in time, read about the areas they lived, battles they fought. A small, proved genealogy is more exciting than thousands of names any day. The people become alive.

Have fun! I sure do.

Mary Ann - who considers it fun that she might descend from kings and queens but hasn't 'proved' it yet.

 

[Chicabee19]

Don't want to pop your bubbles but ... if you found your genealogy online...

True. And you can't always rely on published books either. At first I corrected online mistakes... finally gave up after someone would 're-correct' my corrections to the wrong thing once again!

Someone wrote a book about our family, but it turned out she relied greatly on incorrect information and her 'intuition', of all things.

Go by actual records - census, court records, newspaper clippings, social security records, photos, church records, gravestones, family bibles (a very valuable source), letters. Don't forget older relatives who were there. Talk to them before they are all gone!

It's great if you can find people with provable information about a linking line. For example, I found 2 people on the Internet researching the ancestry of my g-g-g-g-grandfather's 2 brothers, and they had a lot of info and records that mentioned people in my direct line. Families lived a lot closer to each other, and their daily lives were often closely linked.

Another reason collaborating with linking lines is a good idea is because back in the day it was very common for cousins of varying degrees to marry. It was also common for more than one person in a family to marry into another family. 2 brothers would marry 2 sisters, for example. In tiny close-knit communities there weren't always a lot of choices.

In one of my side lines, a girl even married her paternal uncle. She was her own aunt.​

 

[Backyard Buddies]

Quote:
Ooooh! Sounds like a good story. Care to share?

 

[rooster-red]

i researched my family tree and found out that I'm the sap.






I've been able to go back as far as the Viking era, but there the trail appears to end. Record keeping probably wasn't a priority.