Finally built a family tree...

[CliveR]

I am new to the forum, so thought I would make this my first post to introduce myself.

For years I have been watching genealogy-related TV programmes, such as Who Do You Think You Are, and thought one day I would at least do a DNA test to investigate my ethnicity. It was mainly the cost putting me off, but in late 2022 I took the plunge and joined Ancestry during one of their sales. I should add that I already had a dormant family tree of about half-a-dozen people in a free My Heritage account, put together from family knowledge. However, I used the 3-month trial that came with my Ancestry DNA kit to start building a proper tree from records. I have tried to be thorough, so no accepting Ancestry Hints willy-nilly. It has been like a part-time job ever-since. I have gone way beyond the initial free three months and now subscribe. I hadn't anticipated how entertaining, stimulating and addictive it would become, so don't begrudge the cost.

My tree is now relatively extensive - I have gone back further than I anticipated, mostly to the 1700s. Some branches go back as far as the early 1600s, but some started to stall in the early 1800s, mainly due to missing records. I have tried to use indirect means to extend those branches further back. Of course, there are also a few brickwalls with unknown fathers (or mothers). I'm guessing that my experience of this discipline is fairly normal. I'm beginning to think that I've now more-or-less pushed the tree as far as back as it will go. Do people really manage to take their trees much further back than the early 1700s through online research?

 

[peter]

Do people really manage to take their trees much further back than the early 1700s through online research?

Provided the parish registers are online and indexed it's not significantly more difficult, though you may have problems on the female lines as a result of the mother's name not being mentioned when her children were baptised. However with every generation there's a chance of hitting a 'brick wall', whether because a baptism wasn't recorded, or because the family moved some distance.

In the mid-17th century you have the problem of missing records during the Parliamentary period, then when you get back to the 16th century the main problem is that the register for many parishes haven't survived.

However, by far the biggest problem is that with hundreds, and then thousands of ancestral lines to research no one person can handle it - and that's why it's so important to collaborate with your 'lost cousins'!

 

[Pauline]

Do people really manage to take their trees much further back than the early 1700s through online research?

As Peter says, it does very much depend on what’s online, but one of the biggest problems can be not so much finding baptisms etc. online, but confirming which one is the right one. That usually means checking out other sources as well as registers, such as wills, which are less likely to be online, but you can order documents direct from archives using their online catalogues, albeit not for free, but they will usually be sent via email these days.

 

[CliveR]

Thanks Peter and Pauline for your responses.

I have, indeed, hit the issue of the mother not being named on the earlier baptism records. In the 1600s and 1700s, they obviously didn't recognise the mother's role in giving birth.

I think you make a very valid point, Peter, that a 'brickwall' could well be the result of a family having moved, which is particularly difficult to recognise in times before the census. I have managed to identify moves within the same county through the continuity of births from one town to another. In one case, this was then backed up spectacularly by DNA connections suggested by Ancestry Thrulines.

And I agree, Pauline, that half the problem is in choosing the right records from those available. I have used name patterns to do this. When I first started to build the tree, I was only concerned with direct ancestors but later realised the importance of finding all the children in order to obtain clues as to who came before. However, this strategy is hindered by the apparent obsession with certain names like Mary, Ann, Elizabeth, William, Thomas and John.

 

[CliveR]

I should add that I have found the man's profession to sometimes be useful in identifying the right records and links between people. It seems that if the profession was skilled, like stone mason or carpenter, it was often stated on the records and also passed down from father to son.

Regarding wills, I have seen a couple of wills for my ancestors that other people have posted on Ancestry. They can be interesting and informative reading. However, since most of my ancestors were poor labourers, I imagine they generally didn't make wills.

 

[peter]

I have managed to identify moves within the same county through the continuity of births from one town to another. In one case, this was then backed up spectacularly by DNA connections suggested by Ancestry Thrulines.

Remember that ThruLines are based on trees, not DNA. Although there is a DNA connection, it might not be the one that Ancestry suggest, so treat ThruLines as hints rather than evidence.

You're on safer ground when the distance travelled is greater. If someone moves to a different town in the same county the gene pool might not be very different.

 

[CliveR]

Remember that ThruLines are based on trees, not DNA. Although there is a DNA connection, it might not be the one that Ancestry suggest, so treat ThruLines as hints rather than evidence.

Yes, I realise Thrulines are suggestions based on other people's trees and are only as good as those trees. I don't take them at face-value and do a bit of checking. Sometimes they are obviously way out but often seem plausible.

 

[peter]

often seem plausible

Those are the most dangerous ones - I suspect it's the reason that there are so many errors in online trees which are supposedly evidenced by sourced records - the fact that something is not obviously wrong doesn't mean that it's right. The question I ask myself is, "what do they know that I don't?" and if I can't find the answer to that question, or am not satisfied by their evidence, I don't accept their conclusion.

 

[Pauline]

However, since most of my ancestors were poor labourers, I imagine they generally didn't make wills.

It’s always best to check, though, as labourers did make wills, and not all were as poor as we might imagine.

 

[peter]

It’s always best to check, though, as labourers did make wills, and not all were as poor as we might imagine.

Something else to bear in mind is that whilst the most readily-accessible wills are the PCC wills up to 1858, most wills would have been proved in lower courts - and not all of those wills are online.

 

[SueMay]

I totally agree that finding the correct records can be challenging, especially prior to 1800. However, sometimes you do come across some gems.

The best baptism record I come across was for a John Blanshard born in 1785. This is the information on the record:
John, son of Geo Blanshard, 3rd son of Jn Blanshard of Pocklington, Fellmonger, and Jane, 2nd daughter of Peter Blanshard of Wilberfoss, Farmer. Baptised on Apr 24, Born April 22.

Thought I had hit the jackpot until I then found this record:
John Blanshard, Father: John Blanshard, Sh?ner of Pocklington & Ann, Daughter of John Gawtry of Bealby(?). Born June 4th 1786, Baptised July 21st 1786.

Have DNA matches linking me to John Blanshard/Blanchard (1786) and his wife, Sarah Ashlin. Still working on another possible match further back. All great fun and I love trying to solve my family mysteries.

All the best & happing hunting

 

[peter]

The best baptism record I come across

Dade and Barrington registers are full of detail. If you're an SoG member there was an excellent article in the journal a couple of years ago by John Wintrip, who will be speaking to LostCousins members next month about marriage registers.