How far back have you gone on your tree?

Green Mile

I’ve managed to go back to 1656 to a James Farrell.

I do need to fact check this again to be sure. Would be interested to know how far back you’ve gone?

p15574

Mid-1800s only, due to a lack of records. I have a few estimated dates of birth of the 1830s or 40s, maybe one that would have been born before 1800 but no documentary proof. How did you manage to get back that far? I presume this James Farrell is in Ireland?

3x: 20/32
4x: 4/64

pinkypinky

Most Irish lines back to the beginning of the 19th century, a couple tipping into the 18th.
My Welsh line back to 1750s.
My English line - work done by other people which I'm working on verifying, goes back much further to beginning of 17th century, but I'm only claiming it back to the 1790s at the moment.

Unless you have nobility or land owners in your tree, it is very difficult to get back into the 18th century or earlier.

Another way to look at it is quantity.

EG, on my 3x great-grandparents, I know details/names, etc for 28/32.
On the next generation, I know 19/64. That's where the records run out.

Kalimah

I’ve gotten back to the early 19th century and in the case of my Cavan ancestors to about 1760 and the birth of my 4x great grandfather. I realised a few years ago that the Cavan 1821 census had survived so leapt backwards from that!
My maternal great grandfather had an old family bible where he had written down as many of his relatives as he could - down to precise dates of birth and marriage so it was only a case of filling in the blanks after that!
I was up in Cavan during the summer and found the townland where my Dad’s side of the family were from. Asking around it seems there are still people with the same name there. It’s a reasonably uncommon name so we’re probably related way back!
It was great to see the landscape they’d lived in.

L1011

Various mid 18th century births but a lot of lines run out with just having a fathers name off a mid-late 19th century marriage cert.

27/32 3x great
12/64 4x great

Hermy

29/32 3x great
22/64 4x great (plus five with only forename)
Most Irish lines back to early 1800's - one or two into the late 1700's.
One English line back to 1360 through others research.
One Irish line with gaps back to ~1600 through my own research.

Birth family
12/16 3x great on maternal side
Still nothing on my paternal side

spurious

All 2x great.
15/16 paternal 3x great
6/32 paternal 4x great
4/16 maternal 3x great
2/32 maternam 4x great

Lots of 'sideways' branches.
Late 1700s the furthest back that I am sure of.

KildareFan

Mother's side go back to Williamite soldiers who were granted land in Co Carlow & Wicklow, so I've been able to track some ancestors to mid 1600s. An Ancestry subscriber drags one line back to the 1300s in England but has ignored my messages asking for evidence. I've managed to extract a lot of information on those lines from the memorials on the registry of deeds.

The da's side goes back to the late 1700s but can't get back any further.

Mick Tator

I’m not a fan of this because it gives fuel to ancestor collectors who place excessive faith in Ancestry ‘Hints’ and the like. Finding a smallholder ancestor in 1860’s Ireland (and proving the connection) is far more meritorious than a link to a gentry connection in 1700.

Hermy

Mick Tator wrote: »

I’m not a fan of this because it gives fuel to ancestor collectors who place excessive faith in Ancestry ‘Hints’ and the like. Finding a smallholder ancestor in 1860’s Ireland (and proving the connection) is far more meritorious than a link to a gentry connection in 1700.

Three things...

Firstly, as genealogists we are all ancestor collectors.

Secondly, most Irish ancestors can be identified without recourse to Ancestry.

Thirdly, it's not a contest - all properly researched ancestry is equally meritorious.

Mollymoo19

Mick Tator wrote: »

I’m not a fan of this because it gives fuel to ancestor collectors who place excessive faith in Ancestry ‘Hints’ and the like. Finding a smallholder ancestor in 1860’s Ireland (and proving the connection) is far more meritorious than a link to a gentry connection in 1700.

Not feeling meritorious, but I've proven many lines back to 1860s Ireland and beyond, even though Ancesty hints are next to useless for Irish lines, but what I wouldn't give for just one gentry connection in 1700! Think of all the record sets that would open up for me.

pinkypinky

Hermy wrote: »

Thirdly, it's not a contest - all properly researched ancestry is equally meritorious.

I definitely do have some favourite ancestors though!

Hermy

Mollymoo19 wrote: »

...even though Ancesty hints are next to useless for Irish lines...

Perhaps this is so in the case of your own research but it's not the case generally.

As a case in point, the Irish tree I'm working on this morning is riddled with hints, the vast majority of which are relevant and far from useless.

And this has been my experience over nearly ten years of Ancestry membership.

Garlinge

I can boast back to 1760 on two Irish lines. One was helped by slightly unusual name for a mother on a church record for a 1798 baptism. That person emigrated to UK in 1825 so have rest of line well documented. I was fortunate that down the years, he had recorded the Irish towns of birth for his family instead of just "Ireland" so I was able to hone in on those parishes.

The other Irish one was result of a biography written by a great uncle who was born in 1860. He spoke of visiting a graveyard and being shown a family headstone. This tiny cemetery was a challenge to find as only a few clues but a person on Rootschat came up trumps and even read the inscription that I now find indecipherable. Luckily the detailed inscription was recorded in that fine set of volumes of same. This gave a forbears date of death and age so back to 1760.

Mollymoo19

Hermy wrote: »

Perhaps this is so in the case of your own research but it's not the case generally.

As a case in point, the Irish tree I'm working on this morning is riddled with hints, the vast majority of which are relevant and far from useless.

And this has been my experience over nearly ten years of Ancestry membership.

Maybe I'm very unlucky then, Hermy. No one had any of my ancestors in an online tree until after I added them (bar one line, where I collaborated with a 'cousin' to build out the branch - 10 years + ago). This was before Ancestry had much other than the FS index. Since I did an Ancestry DNA test, I have been building out collateral branches and have been luckier with those branches that had emigrants.

L1011

The tree match hints are often useless; particularly as I'd expect that the majority of people who put a tree up would not meet the basics of standards that an average poster here relies on - let alone the pros amongst us. People who are down as the children of people who weren't even born; merging entire families etc etc

The record hints on the other hand, are often useful. Got a (very short - bought himself out after 7 weeks) Irish Guards service record for an often very difficult to trace great granduncle bounced up that way only last week for instance. Never knew he was in the military and would never have had reason to search.

Searching their odd baptism databases on their own is quite hard, partially down to how they display stuff so - diocese and era depending - hints can often be a huge help.

Hermy

L1011 wrote: »

The tree match hints are often useless...

The record hints on the other hand...

Apologies Molly if it was the tree hints you were referring to.

They can be an absolute nuisance and I turned them off a long time back.

L1011

My main issue with tree hints is that its rejected or accepted per-person, not per-tree.

I could have ten useless tree suggestions - wrong person or 'researched' by a hyperactive toddler who accepted every other hint going or just wrong for other reasons - and I turn off the suggestions. Then someone comes along with a pile of nice documented research and I never get suggested it.

Mick Tator

Mollymoo19 wrote: »

......but what I wouldn't give for just one gentry connection in 1700! Think of all the record sets that would open up for me.

Not always. :) A grandson of my original ancestor in Ireland converted to RC on marriage early 1700's, was struck from the family pedigree and thrown out. I'm 99% sure of the connection, based on names, locations, events, lore in the original branch, etc. but no proof!

Mick Tator

Hermy wrote: »

Three things...

Firstly, as genealogists we are all ancestor collectors.

Secondly, most Irish ancestors can be identified without recourse to Ancestry.

Thirdly, it's not a contest - all properly researched ancestry is equally meritorious.

With respect, that is a very narrow interpretation of my comments. Perhaps I should have been more precise –
I agree all genealogists are ancestor collectors bur not all take the same care with proofs. Too many accept unresearched data simply to ‘go further back’ viz. the huge number of high content online trees that are copied/pasted together, replete with the same errors. Many are seeking a link to a famous person (remember WDYTYA?), or number volume. Many (most?) of us agree that generally the quality of a tree is inversely proportional to its size.

Recourse to Ancestry is not a prerequisite for Irish genealogy, I never said it was. I commented on “collectors who place excessive faith in Ancestry ‘Hints’ and the like.” Most of us have seen trees with daft connections, births by mothers at 60, marriages at 8, etc. My personal experience with Ancestry’s ‘Hints’ has been same-named people on other member’s trees, usually incorrect and with wrong or no sources. MyHeritage is similar. Perhaps my research (mainly pre-1864) is a factor?

I agree that all proper research is meritorious, but it cannot be said that inputting a bit of data and selecting from a few images thrown up by the GRO search engine is the equivalent of trawling through pages of blobby and spidery writing on a badly imaged, stained and ragged 18th C parish register. Some research is more admirable. Too many people see the reward of adding ‘ancestors’ or breaching 1850 / 1800 or further back as the objective and that competitive outlook is dangerous because it colours their research.

I could maintain that I can trace back to Woden, using several genealogies listed in the ‘Saxon Chronicles’ in which a person of my name appears and from whom we supposedly descend. In another I can go further – just to list the final few generations …..Sceaf, that is, the son of Noah, who was born in Noah's ark: Laznech, Methusalem, Enoh, Jared, Malalahel, Cainion, Enos, Seth, Adam the first man, and our Father, that is, Christ. Amen

It might be a bit of fun or cause for encouragement, but date boasting is meaningless at best and dangerous at worst.

mindhorn

Not confident in finding much past my 3rd great grandparents. Impressed that so many can go further back as my 3rd great were all born around 1800.

2nd great grandparents: 14/16
3rd great grandparents: 13/32

Hermy

Mick Tator wrote: »

With respect, that is a very narrow interpretation of my comments. Perhaps I should have been more precise –

It might be a bit of fun or cause for encouragement, but date boasting is meaningless at best and dangerous at worst.

Mick, thanks for elaborating on your initial comment much of which I'm in agreement with.

However, what I don't agree with is the contention that this thread, and previous similar threads, are merely about date boasting.
I prefer to view them as progress reports.

pinkypinky

I like the progress report idea!

partyguinness

At least late 18th but lack of records and effort has stopped it. My mother's home place was built in the 1790s (maybe earlier) by our family and stayed in the family continuously up to 25 years ago.

My great grandmother born in 1887 (it was the family farm) was born there and she had stories passed down from the time of famine and there is an exact location where a starving woman just dropped dead in the haggard to the side of the house. There is a famine grave, soup kitchen and old workhouse about 4 miles away. Great grandmother died aged 97 and I rememeber her well- she was a widow for 44 years.

Earnest

L1011 wrote: »

My main issue with tree hints is that its rejected or accepted per-person, not per-tree.

I could have ten useless tree suggestions - wrong person or 'researched' by a hyperactive toddler who accepted every other hint going or just wrong for other reasons - and I turn off the suggestions. Then someone comes along with a pile of nice documented research and I never get suggested it.

How do you turn off tree hints, as a matter of interest?

I go through at the record hints first, and only if there's a doubt or I'm getting mixed up in a married-twice situation do I look at the tree hints. Then I "Ignore" the tree hints, but they remain listed in the "Ignored Hints" section if I ever wanted to come back to them.

Hermy

Earnest wrote: »

How do you turn off tree hints, as a matter of interest?

Click on your username in the top right of the screen and select Site Preferences from the drop down menu.

Garlinge

I am more now more interested in finding out about the times and places of when forebears lived. The personal angle is a great hook to read up on the history and to walk the same laneways, see the same views hopefully unchanged. I must say I have no curiosity about living relatives unless they are also keen researchers and might have something to contribute from same. The tens of thousands are DNA matches are disappointing. Scare any supply any useful data or respond to messages.

quodec

I've been researching my family history since the late 1990s and eventually got as far back as a 1753 wedding on my mother's side and a 1781 wedding on my father's side. Luck has played an important part in my research though. The first element was my own surname which, though having variations of spelling, was easy to isolate as I went further back. The second was my maternal grandmother who even in her latter years, had retained an amazing knowledge of both her and her husband's family histories, going back into the late 18th century; which was of great use in verifying parish details. And finally, the two parishes my parents came from had some of the earliest parish records in the county; both beginning in the mid 18th century.

Jellybaby_1

Garlinge wrote: »

... I must say I have no curiosity about living relatives unless they are also keen researchers and might have something to contribute from same...[/QUOTE]

Me too. I've been getting blanks for the last couple of years so am giving it a rest although I did get a sub to Irish Newspapers for Christmas so I'll enjoy rummaging through that. I was contacted recently by a distant relative in another country who was 'researching her family' but when we got down to the nitty gritty she had absolutely zero real research done, and it really looks like she's looking for somewhere to bring her whole family to stay!! Not on yer nelly, Nelly!!!

srmf5

I can go back to the early 1800s or late 1700s on all lines except the ones where I'm missing three 3x great grandparents. The most recent ancestor where I have brick-walled was born in the 1830s (which I suppose could still be considered the early 1800s but closer to mid-1800s).

My earliest ancestors were the parents of my 3x great grandfather who was born in 1788. I don't actually have a baptism record for this man born in 1788 or his son born in 1823 but their names and dates of birth were kept in a small book. Their names and dates of deaths are also on the family headstone. The man born 1788 and his wife are named on the headstone but his parents aren't named. They may or may not have been buried in the same plot since the man b. 1788 had initially erected the headstone for his daughter who died in 1863. I also found a will in 1805 for the father of the ancestor born in 1788 so he was possibly born about 1725 (possibly about 80 when he died). His son (b. 1788) was 82 when he died, his son (b. 1823) was 88, his son (b. 1880) was 85 and his son (b. 1915) was 83 when he died.

Through Y-DNA testing, I've discovered a link to gentry through this line. Unfortunately, it was likely back in the 1600s at the most recent when the family last had any significance so I will probably never be able to link up to that old family pedigree. I would have loved to have been able to go far back on at least one line!

3x greatgrandparents: 29/32
4x great grandparents: 8/64 that I'm confident on

Earnest

Hermy wrote: »

Click on your username in the top right of the screen and select Site Preferences from the drop down menu.

Thanks, Hermy. Hadn't been there since joining.

Nqp15hhu

Late 1780s

Fourth great grandfather born 1725, died 1792. It’s on his tombstone along with his wife’s year of birth, death and maiden name, and his son’s name who felt the need to inscribe that he was the one who erected the tombstone.
The given names are still used by my family today.

Garlinge

I am happy to know I have a forebear born 1760 in North Co Dublin. This one was only teased out in past year with church records/unusual surname and the use of a her unusual christian name for a grandchild born in 1823 so I am fairly confident.

I have 1760 on another line but more speculative. A dutiful son inscribed full birthdates on a headstone for his parents so another definite set of dates at 1798 for them.

jos28

1822 Castletownbere and then