Geneology

[12stones]

I've been trying to trace my geneology for awhile now, and have made some pretty neat discoveries. First, I've only been able to trace my paternal grandmother's family, but I have been able to trace it back to 11th century England. Two ancestors of small note were Adam Banastre, Lord of Farleton (b. ~1288) and Lord Hugo de Talmash (b. ~1070).

Just interested to see if anyone else has done a comprehensive geneology and what you've found if you have.

[CactusJack]

Still working on mine, have been tracing back on my fathers side and besides finding two ancestors who signed an allegiance to the Campbells of Breadalbane I also found a cousin that I never knew I had.

[Cawdorian]

Warning!!!!

Genealogy is very interesting and addictive stuff. I have been fortunate to trace both sides of my family line back, some lines as far back as 800 AD - 1000 AD. When you get that far back in history you will find many famous and notorious ancestors. The records that have been preserved and found from that period are those of our ancestors who owned land and/or were titled. I don't what happened to the records of the common folks, my guess is they are very far and few between.

I've found lines in my family going back to Clans Campbell, Lamont, Bruce, McAlpine, Graham, Dunbar, McGregor, Woods, Blair and many others.

[12stones]

Warning!!!!

Genealogy is very interesting and addictive stuff.

Agreed!!

[Arizona Scot]

I have just recently started tracing mine back, on my fathers side is Dorward a sept of clan Gordon, on my mothers side there is ties to Macleod and to the Irish O'Dell as well as English and Welsh. The only really interesting thing I have found so far is that it seems that my mothers, fathers family may have been granted land for their help and loyalty in the war of the roses.

[McFarkus]

Warning!!!!

Genealogy is very interesting and addictive stuff.

I've been addicted for more than a decade. (btw Adam Banastre is also an ancestor of mine). The only time I forget to eat is when I'm glued to my computer working on my genealogy database.

If you want to check out my online tree at Rootsweb - here it is.
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi...wballard&id=I1

[gilmore]

Warning!!!!

... The records that have been preserved and found from that period are those of our ancestors who owned land and/or were titled. I don't what happened to the records of the common folks, my guess is they are very far and few between.

....

Right. The common folk and poorer people rarely left records. The records are essentially documents that memorialize the transference of wealth, such as wills, marriages (especially of heiresses or potential heiresses), deeds and grants of various sorts, etc. So, no wealth usually meant no records. Thus, since most of our ancestors were probably impoverished peasants (by far the bulk of humanity until modern times), we will probably never know very much about most of them. On the other hand, the further back you able to go, the more likely you are to run into land-owning gentry, who usually descend from aristocracy who in turn descend from royalty, who are well documented. The trick is having the perserverance to continue the work.

(Not that I think there is anything special about having royal or aristocratic ancestry, other than it makes filling in the blanks in genealogical research a whole lot easier. As we discussed last weekend, I find that the rogues and scoundrels usually had much more interesting life stories.)

[McFarkus]

I find that the rogues and scoundrels usually had much more interesting life stories.)

I agree. My mother had a couple of 'little old lady' cousins who were working feverishly on genealogy and telling everyone about it until one day they were silent. Apparently they'd found a horse thief in the tree and were so embarrassed they just stopped.

One of the refreshing things to find among notes are things like 'executed', 'hanged, drawn & quartered', and 'murdered.' Though they often don't go into the reasons why. I like having rapscallions in the tree.

[davedove]

(Not that I think there is anything special about having royal or aristocratic ancestry, other than it makes filling in the blanks in genealogical research a whole lot easier.

Right, unless you are in the line of inheritance, it really doesn't mean much to say you have a royal ancestor. The truth be told, if you back a ways, just about everyone will have some sort of noble ancestor. It's an interesting thing to find, and even something to brag about if you want, but that's about all it's good for.

[gilmore]

...
Just interested to see if anyone else has done a comprehensive geneology and what you've found if you have.

My family has been doing it for a long time, a couple of generations now. We are American and have most of our lines traced to the Revolution. I have a cousin whose goal is to account for every one of his ancestors back to the immigrants who came here from Europe. He recently retired, and is well on his way to achieving his goal.

What I have found:

1. ALWAYS work from the present backward. NEVER skip back a few generations and then try to make a connection with possible descendants. It's almost always a waste of time, and can become misleading. E.g., your surname may be Bruce, but if you try to find a descent from Robert the Bruce to you in the direct male line, you won't.

2. Start by talking to the oldest relatives you have. Learn how to interview the elderly. Let them talk at their own pace, gently nudging their memories toward relevant facts. On the other hand, don't dismiss some facts as irrelevant. You never know when they may come in handy as clues to what you are looking for, or help you contextualize your information. Tape record them, and maybe transcribe the tapes if you have time.

3. Family stories that are passed down orally are often muddled, embellished, embroidered, or even outright lies, but may contain a germ of truth that can be helpful.

4. Keep an open mind. Always be prepared to revise your work if you come across more reliable material. I have a relative who likes to say that he never accepts something as a fact until he can hold the original document in his hands. Of course, even then there will be mistakes. Documents aren't facts, just the best evidence of facts.

5. When the paper trail fails, try DNA testing. See the FAQ at www.ftdna.com.