Oldest known Ancestor?

[Jack]

What is your oldest known Ancestor?

Half genealogist reach year 1600
Every 5 reach 1450
Only 4% reach 1200 or older
(Among 450 genealogist)

Great software:
http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Index.asp?mid=4A17Nvi

[Hugh Watkins]

Jack wrote:

What is your oldest known Ancestor?

Half genealogist reach year 1600
Every 5 reach 1450
Only 4% reach 1200 or older
(Among 450 genealogist)

Great software:
http://www.lousyfamilytree.com/Index.asp?

definitely spam with this afiliate tag mid=4A17Nvi

you may safely read "legacy" as meaning out of date software
FTM 16 rules

Hugh W

--

a wonderful artist in Denmark
http://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/

Beta blogger
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks

old blogger GENEALOGE
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

[Jack]

Oh, why soo sour?
Do you Hugh, still research year 1700 ?

Those values are counted from two months old poll.
Well, they are quite actice/keen when they have given vote.
That 1600 is quite clear limit for many, none census/christening info
available.


"Hugh Watkins" <[email protected]> kirjoitti
viestissä:[email protected]...

Jack wrote:
What is your oldest known Ancestor?

Half genealogist reach year 1600 (<50%)
Every 5 reach 1450 (20%)
Only 4% reach 1200 or older
(Among 450 genealogist)

[Hugh Watkins]

Jack wrote:

Oh, why soo sour?
how these groups work - spam is spam

Do you Hugh, still research year 1700 ?

nope

I do shoe string genealogy and very little before 1841 England and Wales
I have so much data coming in for my LAPHAM one-name study that I am
about a year behind (my grand children can take it further if they are
interested when I am long gone.

In one to two years time welsh genealogy is going to be revolutionised
in the way that Danish genealogy has been by
http://www.arkivalieronline.dk/default.aspx

where all images of parish registers from the oldest to 1891 and census
1789 to 1916 are included - sorted by address with no indexes - the plan
is not to use film or fiche so much in their national archives reading rooms

Welsh parish registers are being filmed and Monmouthshire is finished
and Glamorgan half done

The images and index will be added to http://www.familysearch.org/ and
to http://www.llgc.org.uk/ Digital Mirror
http://www.llgc.org.uk/drych/index_s.htm

and the earliest census I have yet seen

St Asaph Notitiae (SA/MISC/1300-1491):
A survey of the population of the St Asaph diocese in the 1680s

http://www.llgc.org.uk/drych/Notitiae/nll_s001.htm

http://www.llgc.org.uk/drych/Notitiae/nll_s009.htm
has the best mouse over tesxt I have yet seen

St Asaph Notitiae
The Rural Deanery of Tegeingl


* Bodfari <<< http://www.llgc.org.uk/drych/Notitiae/nll_s599.htm
* Caerwys
* Cilcain
* Cwm
* Diserth
* Flint
* Gwaunysgor
* Halkyn
* Holywell
* Hope
* Llanasa
* Meliden
* Mold
* Nerquis
* Newmarket
* Northop
* Rhuddlan
* Tremeirchion
* Whitford
* Ysceifiog


enjoy

Hugh W

Those values are counted from two months old poll.
Well, they are quite actice/keen when they have given vote.
That 1600 is quite clear limit for many, none census/christening info
available.


"Hugh Watkins" <[email protected]> kirjoitti
viestissä:[email protected]...

Jack wrote:

What is your oldest known Ancestor?

Half genealogist reach year 1600 (<50%)
Every 5 reach 1450 (20%)
Only 4% reach 1200 or older
(Among 450 genealogist)

--

a wonderful artist in Denmark
http://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/

Beta blogger
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks

old blogger GENEALOGE
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

[Denis Beauregard]

Le Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:57:22 GMT, "Jack" <[email protected]> écrivait dans
soc.genealogy.computing:

Oh, why soo sour?
Do you Hugh, still research year 1700 ?

Those values are counted from two months old poll.
Well, they are quite actice/keen when they have given vote.
That 1600 is quite clear limit for many, none census/christening info
available.

But it depends on where your ancestors were living.

I think at this time, about 10% of Quebec people with old French
roots (i.e. most ancestors coming before the 1700s) have a link
to Charlemagne. That is, with 100s of people working for me just
to tag these people, I could get 500 000 persons back to 800 (and
before).

Some specialists are working on old New England ancestry and some
in Virginia too. Something like 500 immigrants connected to some
king (usually English) and having descendants today.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginning to 1765

[Doug McDonald]

That 1600 is quite clear limit for many, none census/christening info
available.

But it depends on where your ancestors were living.

I think at this time, about 10% of Quebec people with old French
roots (i.e. most ancestors coming before the 1700s) have a link
to Charlemagne.

Some specialists are working on old New England ancestry and some
in Virginia too. Something like 500 immigrants connected to some
king (usually English) and having descendants today.

Yes, but that's not the "interesting" statistic, which is how many

people have lines that extend well before 1600 yet do NOT
connect up to royal lines (almost all of which reach the same
5th century dead ends). I have several, dying out from 1300-1500.

Doug McDonald

[Denis Beauregard]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:33:08 -0600, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

That 1600 is quite clear limit for many, none census/christening info
available.

But it depends on where your ancestors were living.

I think at this time, about 10% of Quebec people with old French
roots (i.e. most ancestors coming before the 1700s) have a link
to Charlemagne.

Some specialists are working on old New England ancestry and some
in Virginia too. Something like 500 immigrants connected to some
king (usually English) and having descendants today.

Yes, but that's not the "interesting" statistic, which is how many
people have lines that extend well before 1600 yet do NOT
connect up to royal lines (almost all of which reach the same
5th century dead ends). I have several, dying out from 1300-1500.

I have some too. One is by the Beauregards (to a record in 1471)
which is a commoner line. But all my other data in 1400-1499 are
about noble families or looking alike. At that point, only some lines
lead to a king and thus far, I have not tried to complete the other
lines. So, the not-royal lines are basically the dead ends.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginning to 1765

[Gjest]

On Jan 30, 10:10 pm, Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-
[email protected]> wrote:

But it depends on where your ancestors were living.

Indeed. Iceland is the best example of that. Everyone there (OK,
well, excluding a few problematic adoption cases and recent
immigrants) can easily trace their ancestry back to the 9th century
with a few minutes of work. The family trees are fairly complete from
the present back to 1650 or so, but everyone will have some brances
that go a long, long way back...all the way to the viking period.