Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wait a moment. What are the LDS genealogy records? Is that some kind of hoax of creationist freaks?
No, the LDS genealogy records are exactly what they sound like and are really amazing, a real wonder of the world. The LDS church has put serious resources into genealogy and have really complete records on ALOT of families. See, they have a practice of baptising dead ancestors through a particular rite, so they find it important to know who their own ancestors are so that they can save their souls through posthumous baptism. As such, they are a super useful and accurate genealogy resource and are famous in genealogy circles for the thoroughness of the records they've accumulated.
Earliest I can find are my father's mother's father's mother's side which moved from Brandenburg in the first half of the 19th century. Latest would be (I believe) 1886 with my great-great grandfather Emil coming from Finland via Hamburg.
Myself. Was born in England but moved to Finland a few years ago (although it is the country that my mother was born in so I'm just migrating the family back)
Well 15 generations is 32000 people. Most people need 15 generations to get back to the 1600's. There were only 250,000 people in present day USA by 1700, and only 50,000 in the year 1650. So the statistics would be difficult to fathom.
Now I know you don't know very many bloodlines back 15 generations. Not even Queen Elizabeth can trace most of her relatives back that far. Certainly some of the bloodlines, but no where near the majority of them.
What is the furthest bloodline you can trace?
Well, let's see. In the 15th generation of my ancestors, I have 54 identified people in my database. Interestingly enough, in the 14th generation, I have 110 identified people. So I have the parents of only a quarter of those ancestors. So you're right, it's not that many compared to the number of ancestors. And several are duplicated. In that one generation, people are born from about 1480 to 1600. I have ancestors from all the British Isles, Germany, and Netherlands (that I know of). It's the 7th generation before I lose any lines. And that generation, they're born between the 1770s and 1834.
Generally speaking, I don't deal with the pre-US lines. Especially those early ones. I know that there are rarely records documenting anything (people online posted lineages are not records), and making that leap from who the person in in colonial America to who he is in England is usually really difficult. I do have a few lines that I'm confident of the connection, and those tie back to royal lines eventually, so they go back a ways. But ... I don't include them in my working database. Like I said ... that's all very well and good, but I don't take it seriously.
The lines that tend to drop off are Southern lineages and the women. The south wasn't established replicating Britain, like the New England colonies were. So they didn't bring the practice of public record-keeping with them. And the women ... considering they were almost non-persons and rarely named in records. Those things make them tough to trace.
The lines that tend to drop off are Southern lineages and the women. The south wasn't established replicating Britain, like the New England colonies were. So they didn't bring the practice of public record-keeping with them. And the women ... considering they were almost non-persons and rarely named in records. Those things make them tough to trace.
New England colonial settlement was much more organized, and blurred the lines between the state and the church — sometimes completely, in Cambridge, MA the church affairs and government affairs were handled in the same meeting. But I think the records were church records, not public if a distinctions makes sense.
Hmm. I wonder if back in the 1700s a British visitor would have thought New England felt more British than the South? New England was colonized mainly by Calvinist Puritans from around 1620 to the 1660s, then followed by a trickle till the early 1800s, as it was rather closed society unattractive to outsiders. Anyhow, if one knows their heritage goes back to New England from colonial days, it's almost certain they came in the mid 17th century or so.
Actually, the difference is that the New Englanders came to settle. So they replicated the way they lived wherever they came from, as best they could. They kept town records. But yes, the church was very mixed up with the town records. Particularly in Massachusetts. The other colonies, not so much, since they tended to be settled by the people who didn't like the way Massachusetts ran things. But still, they were there to establish a society, so kept up the Town Record system.
Southerners came to establish plantations, make good money, and go back to the UK and live off the proceeds. So they didn't set things up replicating things like at home. And primarily, the ones that stayed were the workers.
Actually, the difference is that the New Englanders came to settle. So they replicated the way they lived wherever they came from, as best they could. They kept town records. But yes, the church was very mixed up with the town records. Particularly in Massachusetts. The other colonies, not so much, since they tended to be settled by the people who didn't like the way Massachusetts ran things. But still, they were there to establish a society, so kept up the Town Record system.
Southerners came to establish plantations, make good money, and go back to the UK and live off the proceeds. So they didn't set things up replicating things like at home. And primarily, the ones that stayed were the workers.
Maybe a few of the rich landowners, but the majority of Southerners also came to stay. Remember many were also not plantation owners, especially in the Upland South.
I have a Great-Grandfather who came to the United States from Slovakia in the 1910's. All the rest of my ancestors were here much earlier than that. Probably earlier 1800's.
Not even Queen Elizabeth can trace most of her relatives back that far. Certainly some of the bloodlines, but no where near the majority of them.
Really? It's usually the royals and other noble families who have no problems tracing their ancestors back much longer than just 400 years as most of them were from well recorded nobility.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
New England was colonized mainly by Calvinist Puritans from around 1620 to the 1660s, then followed by a trickle till the early 1800s, as it was rather closed society unattractive to outsiders. Anyhow, if one knows their heritage goes back to New England from colonial days, it's almost certain they came in the mid 17th century or so.
