How many generations or years can you trace your ancestors?

[Anonymous]

One of my ancestors, Crinan of Dunkeld, rose up against MacBeth and died in the ensuing battle in 1045.

Also, my lineage goes back quite a way on the Cherokee side of my family, so this isn’t a purely white thing. One of my Cherokee ancestors married a Tory who was put to death for treason after the Battle of Kings Mountain. There are pictures of the couple easily available on genealogy sites.

After around the 10th century it gets a bit dicey with repeats and whatnot. It is said the lines go back to Agamemnon through Scotland, Gaul (where family was Roman) and eventually Greece. But I am not convinced that is accurate. The lines to Scotland are clear. But that side of my family were affiliated with the Crown, including Lord of the Exchequer in the 1500s, so much easier to verify.

The funny part is that I come from a recent line of hillbilly Appalachians you DCUMers look down on extensively. I guess we fell on hard times!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of my ancestors, Crinan of Dunkeld, rose up against MacBeth and died in the ensuing battle in 1045.

Also, my lineage goes back quite a way on the Cherokee side of my family, so this isn’t a purely white thing. One of my Cherokee ancestors married a Tory who was put to death for treason after the Battle of Kings Mountain. There are pictures of the couple easily available on genealogy sites.

After around the 10th century it gets a bit dicey with repeats and whatnot. It is said the lines go back to Agamemnon through Scotland, Gaul (where family was Roman) and eventually Greece. But I am not convinced that is accurate. The lines to Scotland are clear. But that side of my family were affiliated with the Crown, including Lord of the Exchequer in the 1500s, so much easier to verify.

The funny part is that I come from a recent line of hillbilly Appalachians you DCUMers look down on extensively. I guess we fell on hard times!

sorry, the pics are of her daughter and her husband, late-1840s. Daguerreotypes actually.

[Anonymous]

Back to about 1860, give or take on different lines. I was a history major and am a history buff so I find it just an interesting entry point into different historical periods or questions. I’m less interested in historical battles and rulers than in things like what jobs oeople had, who did they marry, what did they eat/wear, how many kids did they have and how were they raised, etc.

I will say there is a LOT of lazy research in the genealogy world. People assume that just because someone had a particular name or lives in a particular place that it’s a relative. But names were really different then. I had a relative with a really odd Italian name—never met anyone else with it except my cousins. Turns out that it was super common in one particular little village—it means something in the dialect that was spoken at that time, although it’s unclear what. I think it was akin to something like Gardener, so basically all the poor people from that little village who grew stuff had that last name.
There’s a lot of examples of that. My mom proudly found what she thought was an Irish relative in 1860–I was able to point out to ber that there were at least 5 Irish immigrants with the same name and of the same age living in the same state—and it’s not even a common irish last name. I need to have several confirming data points before I add it to my confirmed list.
I get irritated when people are like “oh my ancestor was a horse breeder and I’ve always like horse racing!” That seems weird to me. But it is something to think about aj ancestor who has 9 kids and only 3 of them lived to be adults, and to learned what they died of….really makes you appreciate modern medicine and vaccinations!

[Anonymous]

+1. Polio, influenza, and measles shredded my family tree. It was heartbreaking to see how many tiny children were killed or disabled and everyone just had to endure and go on living.

[Anonymous]

None, because I was adopted internationally. Obviously I have ancestors, but I can't trace them.

[Anonymous]

Mid 1800’s. Can’t go father back than that because Irish civil records burned in the Irish Civil War.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to Genghis Khan.

Since the Mongols had for a brief period the largest empire in the world, there are actually millions of Genghis descendants around.

[Anonymous]

If I ever wondered about the demographics of this board... or maybe it's partly self-selection for this thread.

I am white but there's nothing before ~1900 on my dad's side (Ashkenazi). Basically my great-grandparents and I know the first names of 2 g-g and purportedly have some sort of photo of another pair. I highly doubt there's anything farther back remaining in Europe post-Holocaust and Soviet Era.

On my mom's white southern side, most of the branches end mid-late 1800s, but a couple which had a little money extend further back.

DH is an Asian immigrant himself. I think cousins may know a thing or two back to mid-/late-1800s on his mom's side. On his dad's side, they take genealogy more seriously and can probably get back closer to 1800. That's about it.

[Anonymous]

Why do you want to know this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to Genghis Khan.

Since the Mongols had for a brief period the largest empire in the world, there are actually millions of Genghis descendants around.

I was being facetious but since I’m Asian I’m pretty sure it’s not that far-fetched.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you want to know this?

Don’t you ever wonder about your ancestors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A relative got us back to Charlemagne. Haha, just like every white person in the world.

“White” person here. I’d be SHOCKED if I was descended from Charlemagne. My European ancestors are not from Western Europe, and his empire didn’t reach that Far East (damn autocorrect insists on capitalizing that!). Any way, I can trace back almost to the Swedish deluge on several sides (several 7x GGP uncovered so far, a few born in late 1600s).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Five or six generations in Poland. I could probably do more if I could read Polish or Cyrillic. It's peasants all the way down.

The language and alphabet aren’t the hard parts — reading the handwriting is. I swear most were written in the dark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to about 1860, give or take on different lines. I was a history major and am a history buff so I find it just an interesting entry point into different historical periods or questions. I’m less interested in historical battles and rulers than in things like what jobs oeople had, who did they marry, what did they eat/wear, how many kids did they have and how were they raised, etc.

I will say there is a LOT of lazy research in the genealogy world. People assume that just because someone had a particular name or lives in a particular place that it’s a relative. But names were really different then. I had a relative with a really odd Italian name—never met anyone else with it except my cousins. Turns out that it was super common in one particular little village—it means something in the dialect that was spoken at that time, although it’s unclear what. I think it was akin to something like Gardener, so basically all the poor people from that little village who grew stuff had that last name.
There’s a lot of examples of that. My mom proudly found what she thought was an Irish relative in 1860–I was able to point out to ber that there were at least 5 Irish immigrants with the same name and of the same age living in the same state—and it’s not even a common irish last name. I need to have several confirming data points before I add it to my confirmed list.
I get irritated when people are like “oh my ancestor was a horse breeder and I’ve always like horse racing!” That seems weird to me. But it is something to think about aj ancestor who has 9 kids and only 3 of them lived to be adults, and to learned what they died of….really makes you appreciate modern medicine and vaccinations!

I agree with the laziness. If you’re just looking at trees and not the primary sources, you know nothing. And people think, oh you just pop a name in a database and viola! Ugh. Most people don’t understand how much research goes into a project like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to Genghis Khan.

Since the Mongols had for a brief period the largest empire in the world, there are actually millions of Genghis descendants around.

Isn’t it like 1 in 13 males are related to him? It is something absurd like that.