Geneology

**12stones** · 23rd October 07, 08:13 AM

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** · 23rd October 07, 08:18 AM

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** · 23rd October 07, 09:23 AM

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** · 23rd October 07, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Cawdorian

Warning!!!!

Genealogy is very interesting and addictive stuff.

Agreed!!

**McFarkus** · 23rd October 07, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Cawdorian

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** · 23rd October 07, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Cawdorian

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** · 23rd October 07, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by gilmore

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.

**gilmore** · 23rd October 07, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by mkfarkus

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.

...

Your cousins may have been wiser than you think.

Last winter I discovered something scandalous that had been covered up for over 90 years. I made the mistake of sharing it with a cousin whom I thought of as mature, level-headed and sensible. Evidently she was so shocked and/or hurt by the news that she hasn't spoken to me since. She won't return my repeated phone calls. She is one of my favorite relatives, and I deeply regret that we are estranged.

**davedove** · 23rd October 07, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by gilmore

(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.

**Livingston** · 23rd October 07, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by davedove

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.

Too true. One of my co-workers saw me working on mine at lunch one day and saw that there were about 18 or so kings of various sorts. He asked if that means that he needed to start calling me sire. I just told him "no, my family got out of the country running business years ago, now we're just royal pains in the @$$"