Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2009 13:24:48 GMT -5
How is it possible to trace a family back 740 generations? Surnames didn't exist in England until about 1370!
|
|
|
Post by Mal on Oct 29, 2009 14:44:11 GMT -5
It isn't! No one can! There are some possibilities with the Armenian royal family, I have heard, of going back to the Pharaohs and some rather dubious claims to Roman ancestry, but it is nigh on impossible to go back more than 1500 years. The mathematics of it doesn't work. If we take a generation to be equivalent to 25 years, then 740 generations would be 18,500 years!!!! That would put you in the Upper Paleolithic or Early Stone Age and unless you can find some cave with a paintings of a family group of mammoth hunters recording their births and baptisms I doubt it is possible....! Even using 18 years as a generation- allowing for younger deaths etc, we still go back 13, 320 years!!! The lack of surnames isn't always a problem if dealing with families who recorded their pedigrees or where there was a clear system of patronymics. Why do you ask? PS Happy Birthday for the other day!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2009 10:22:27 GMT -5
Thank you malcom, I assumed as much. I met a person who said they were of the Plantagenet line - I didn't want to call them on that, but when they said they had traced their family back 740 generations ----- well ----- the math just didn't work! I feel lucky just to have gone back 14 generations. Older and wiser Cousin Jack
|
|
|
Post by Mal on Oct 30, 2009 14:21:57 GMT -5
Well I too have a possible descent from the Plantagenets and many other royals in Europe as do probably millions of other people so it isn't such a big deal anyway. Certainly don't have any castles to boot!!! If you think of the maths involved it can be surprising. To the power of two we have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 g-grandparents and so on... If we agree that 25 years is a generation then between myself and William the Conqueror there are approximately 37 generations. 2 to the power of 37 = 1,374,389,53,472.- That's more people than have ever existed. If my calculator doesn't explode with the number!!!! However the population of England in 1066 was 1,100,000- add about a 1000 Normans (0.01%). If we divide the bigger number by the actual population we get 124,944.- Now obviously we have people marrying other people with a common ancestor that limits things and we have to allow for some inflow from abroad- but when you look at that way, allowing for the variables- the possibility of being a Plantagenet for a lot of people is quite high!!! Go far back enough and we are all related!!! Why do you think the Cornish greet each other as cousins! Ha ha! _____ Nevertheless, back to your original question, 740 generations my foot!!! The oldest pedigree in the world is that of Confucious which stretches 80 generations to the present from Confucious and has 83 generations in total! Confucious was born in 551 BC! 320,000 generations separates us from our cousins the chimps!
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Oct 30, 2009 14:48:10 GMT -5
Another point to consider: with a third of the population of Europe dying in the Black Death circa 1349, many of those living immediately prior to that time would not have any modern descendants. So the number of potential European ancestors of folk living today would be reduced accordingly. (Some folk who died at that time do of course have modern descendants as their children survived)
Trencrom
|
|
|
Post by Mal on Oct 31, 2009 4:48:08 GMT -5
Good point Trencrom. I don't know if it's a proven fact or not, but I do recall being told that the Black Death took the heaviest toll on the serfs and peasant classes- although it did affect everyone no doubt. The slighltly better off who could avoid contagion had a higher chance of survival and thus of producing heirs. This also affects the number of potential ancestors one might have going back so far.
There are so many variables that I doubt there is an exact formula but you do start doing the sums it's an eye opener. If you divide the population of England in now (minus about 4 million for recent immigration) by that of 1066 you arrive at 50!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2009 15:26:31 GMT -5
I found some figures that state the population of England in 1066 (when Wm of Normandy invaded) was about 1,100,000. in 1348 at the onset of the Plague, it was 3,750,000. By 1350 it had been decimated and was 2,500,000. I also have read where the Black Death had the greatest affect on the peasant class. Add in the fact you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents etc. etc. it grows Exponentially whereas the population decays. That is the basis for my theory that it is impossible to trace ones family beyond 30 or 40 generations. (Unless you have proof of Royal Linage). Why would anyone say they could go back 740 generations
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 1, 2009 2:59:32 GMT -5
Because they have an extra digit on each foot and hand? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mal on Nov 1, 2009 6:21:24 GMT -5
MariĆ²yn Monroe had extra toes and Ann Boleyn had extra fingers!!!
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 1, 2009 6:40:59 GMT -5
Aha! - so Marilyn was a bit toey and Ann imbibed a bit huh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2009 11:03:17 GMT -5
Yea, that third eye should have been a give-away!
|
|
|
Post by Mal on Nov 2, 2009 6:29:31 GMT -5
On a more serious note, , out of curiosity- how far can you go back with any certainty? I am usually happy to get to about 1750, have a brickwall with William D. in 1800 but some lines go back to the 150'0's- always seems like the "indirect" or "lateral" lines go back the furthest!!! Had a stroke of luck with one possible link to the Cowlin family who are in the Visitations- this meant that I could gain a lot more information beyond 1500!!! So, what's the furthest anyone else has managed with any degree of certainty?
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 2, 2009 9:27:33 GMT -5
I think the earliest I can go back is a 1582 marriage at St Erth with who I believe are the parents of James Trewhella, Churchwarden of Towednack.
Towednack PRs are lacking in that early period but some surviving BTs and a 1699 Will have provided enough information to say with reasonable certainty that I take my direct line back to the above marriage.
|
|
|
Post by myghaelangof on Nov 2, 2009 10:03:10 GMT -5
With a big pinch of salt! I have an east Cornwall line with alleged descendancy from Baron Kinsale. I've seen something on line taking the Barons back to Joseph of Aramethea via English and French royalty and Roman emperors. Another Big pinch of salt. Even if this line were true, I cant prove the alleged illegitimacy in the 1850's, short of comparing dna somewhere along the line. Other lines I can take back to the late 1500's in Penwith are: DENNIS (Sancreed), NOYE (Madron), CHIRGWIN (Sancreed), OPIE & MICHELL (Redruth). Frustratingly there are other lines that could well link into royal or titled lineage and hence maybe back to 12/1300 or earlier, but I cant find the info to bridge the gap from the 1600's : SHAKERLEY, PENROSE, OATS and GRENFELL. Others hovering in the early to mid 1600's include VEALE, TONKIN, USTICK, PHILLIPS, THOMAS (of course! ), SHUTFORD, RAWLING, PEARS/CE, LETHAN, HOSKIN, HANIFORTH, EDWARDS, CASLEY, & COLLEMO. If anyone has any pointers on these families I would appreciate any ideas. Of course the one family I would really like to take back to 1497 is.. Mike.
|
|
|
Post by tonymitch on Nov 2, 2009 10:04:11 GMT -5
I'm personally more interested in what they did rather than how far back I can go. I hope I can go back with certainty to the man I called "Father". Remember, it's a wise man who knows his own father. I have a list of people going back to Thomas Cock 1575 and it looks as though I possibly might probably be related to him. ;D But I want to know what James Mitchell 1799 and Lavinia Harvey 1801 did. Tony M
|
|