Smiffy49 590 Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 I have received a portion of my family tree from a distant relative who is very keen on family history. Starting with me the dates go back to 825 AD ! What is the best way to check if this is genuine? Smiffy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DJBrenton 738 Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 There's no simple answer to that. Family histories are routinely full of ****. I researched one for a friend and eventually came across a family in Lowdham claiming relationship to a famous person a couple of hundred years ago who I could prove was not related in any way. they didn't want to know and their history remained fraudulent. There are very few records dating back to 825 and every step would need documentary evidence to be acceptable. Lots of people make giant leaps of faith when researching their family tree rather than accept they have nothing to go on. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MELTONSTILTON 452 Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 Personally if someone said they had a family tree of my family, going back 1189 years I would be very suspicious, about how accurate it was, 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DJBrenton 738 Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 Personally if someone said they had a family tree of my family, going back 1189 years I would be very suspicious, about how accurate it was, I have a family tree dating back to 1026 but I have copies of birth and marriage certificates for it all. Too often I come across trees with either ---------- to antecedents or no evidence that the John Smith in the tree is the same one who married someone 30 years later. In fairness, the only reason I have a tree back as far as i do is that in the 16th century it goes to a line of land owners who are traceable. It quite possible that a tree goes back to a family with an already researched history if there's even the slightest claim to 'nobility' or' gentry'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Pianoman 1,531 Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 My 4x great Grandfather was Eliab Harvey, Captain of HMS Temeraire, 2nd ship in the line behind HMS Victory at the Battle of Trafalgar. The Temeraire being the subject of that famous Turner painting 'The Fighting Temeraire'. Well now prove that he wasn't my 4x .great Grandfather. I have traced the Harvey's back to 1806 and that is only as a result of what I see on the earliest 1841 census. Any earlier and I have got to start searching through Church records. I reckon you could just make it up as you go along like I just did - or did I? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MELTONSTILTON 452 Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 The family tree goes back to the time of Ceolwulf of Mercia and the Danelaw, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cliff Ton 10,435 Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 I have received a portion of my family tree from a distant relative who is very keen on family history. Starting with me the dates go back to 825 AD ! What is the best way to check if this is genuine? That family tree will have taken a very long time to put together (even if the person responsible was working full-time on it). I don't think you could check it without taking a similar long time yourself. It would be easy to check the more recent entries by looking at the online census information at various websites. But once you go back earlier than 1841, I think you'd have to devote a lot of time if you want to prove / disprove anything. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
notty ash 370 Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 Tracing a family tree can be great fun, but hanky-panky is not a new phenomenon. Before the age of DNA testing, can we believe everything we read on birth certificates and in parish registers? I do wonder! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trevor S 2,003 Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 Naturally, tracing your Family Tree is totally dependent on establishing the various 'roots' of your ancestors....in this case, the word 'root' is a common Australian vernacular.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Smiffy49 590 Posted September 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 Thanks for these offerings. Very enlightening & confusing at the same time. I think you have all given me a task for those long winter nights to come....... Here's a name to use in scrabble, the entry for 825 AD is something like Aetheired Mucil Eadorman of the Gaini (wasn't he in one of the Harry Potter films??) I'll let you how I get on............. but don't hold your breath.... Smiffy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DAVIDW 1,674 Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 Well if you are related to him I reckon you are royalty ! Look in the "index" on the top menu and see if you can spot any familiar names (i.e. those ancestors that you are sure of ). http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=norvan&id=I117880 Doesn't really prove anything though but given the text books quoted some pretty serious research there , which as others have said would take ages to replicate . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chulla 4,946 Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 As my sister katyjay will confirm - we both researched our family history - such research can be a minefield. After years of research we found that - if we followed the male bloodline, as you should - the true surnames of our father and mother's families are not what is stated on the birth certificates. If you click on Like This we will take offence LOL. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Pianoman 1,531 Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 Yes I found similar. The reason my Fathers grandparents were never talked about was purely because there were one or two missing. My surname shouldn't be Harvey! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Smiffy49 590 Posted September 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 I wonder what the population of the country was in 825 AD and how much it grew with every generation over all those years. Thinking about it in these terms, we are all probably related to each other?? Smiffy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rob.L 1,084 Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 By using census and church records, you can only reliably go back as far as the 1600s in England. Which is why I got stuck at William Wat (or Watt), who was born about 1652, on my line. Beyond that, for anyone who isn't royal, titled, or landed gentry, it's mostly down to land ownership, possible mentions in tax records, and so on. A lot of these clams back beyond then are flights of fancy, usually from across the Atlantic. I've seen worse with our Polish research, where everyone seems to want to prove they are from aristocracy if they find a name ending in 'ski'. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
benjamin1945 16,118 Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 Sorry chulla,could'nt resist it, #12 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
catfan 14,793 Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 Me an all ! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
carni 10,094 Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 Benjamin and catfan. Stand in the corner.You naughty naughty boys. lol 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Smiffy49 590 Posted September 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 Totally disillusioned now.... oh well, back to being a serf. Smiffy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
benjamin1945 16,118 Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 #18 its the Bulwell in us carnie,lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MELTONSTILTON 452 Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 The Anglo Saxon Gaini tribe, were established in and around Gainsborough, in Lincolnshire, so my book on Anglo Saxon history says Then using the name I did a quick check on Wiki and found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelred_%22Mucel%22,_Ealdorman_of_the_Gaini Happy hunting Sire Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cliff Ton 10,435 Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 I wonder what the population of the country was in 825 AD ......... Thinking about it in these terms, we are all probably related to each other?? Surely, everybody's family tree ultimately starts at Adam and Eve, so yes - we are all related. Which is a worrying thought. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FLY2 10,108 Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 Yes, just walk through Bulwell. The majority are instantly recognisable as being related. It's worrying when a chap introduces you to his mother, his wife and his daughter, and there is only one woman present. LOL. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paulus 541 Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 The predominance of the 'single eyebrow'........................... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rob.L 1,084 Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 Much akin to the lack of a chin among the upper classes. Truth be told, they're probably more in-bred than anyone apart from the royals. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.