Multi-Million/Billionaires Owning Farms
Society & Culture0 min ago
Why so difficult
Two of my lines go back to the C16th. If all my lines were traced back to that time and assuming cousins didn't marry it would involve just over 2000 different families. So why is it proving so difficult to find the people.
Answers
1 to 4 of 4
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sigma. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
if you go back about 800 years you'll probably have about 20 million ancestors, which would be more than the entire population of Europe. So you'll probably find that lots of cousins married (not first cousins necessarily - probably most had no idea they were related).
Anyway... yes, records are destroyed, and others aren't online... though they might be sooner or later if you want to wait. Censuses are quite recent; before that you have to do a lot of digging.
Anyway... yes, records are destroyed, and others aren't online... though they might be sooner or later if you want to wait. Censuses are quite recent; before that you have to do a lot of digging.
You also need to realise that the ordinary peasant type did not actually find themselves included in many records, mainly baptisms, weddings and burials, the Parish Registers that include your ancestors may not have been transcribed, they may not have survived (though after 1598 a copy was made quarterly for the Bishop), they may be damaged and awaiting a conservator to look at them.
You may also find that although the record has been transcribed you won't find it due to error.
Last night I went to ancestry's 'All London, England, Births and Baptisms, 1813-1906' and for the umpteenth time picked a forename, (Mary in this case), and entered it in the Surname box, and nothing else. Of the 50 that came up on the first page, only a handful really had the surname Mary as written in the Register. About 40% were wrong due to 'Mary' being entered by the transcriber in the surname box - and nothing else. Other errors are due to the transcriber not reading far enough along the line to realise that there was a surname there, And far too many clearly written May, read as Mary.
I reckon that c.35% of the 50 were wrong.
The same applies to any forename you care to think of and investigate. I've corrected several dozens, (a couple of thousands in all of ancestry's dbs - it is a serious failing).
I don't know who is the bigger villain. The LMA for grossly negligent lack of oversight or ancestry for publishing the work without proper investigation of its accuracy,
Having said that, overwhelming number of items have been properly transcribed and I'm grateful for previously unkown folk I've been able to find.
Last night I went to ancestry's 'All London, England, Births and Baptisms, 1813-1906' and for the umpteenth time picked a forename, (Mary in this case), and entered it in the Surname box, and nothing else. Of the 50 that came up on the first page, only a handful really had the surname Mary as written in the Register. About 40% were wrong due to 'Mary' being entered by the transcriber in the surname box - and nothing else. Other errors are due to the transcriber not reading far enough along the line to realise that there was a surname there, And far too many clearly written May, read as Mary.
I reckon that c.35% of the 50 were wrong.
The same applies to any forename you care to think of and investigate. I've corrected several dozens, (a couple of thousands in all of ancestry's dbs - it is a serious failing).
I don't know who is the bigger villain. The LMA for grossly negligent lack of oversight or ancestry for publishing the work without proper investigation of its accuracy,
Having said that, overwhelming number of items have been properly transcribed and I'm grateful for previously unkown folk I've been able to find.
1 to 4 of 4
