|
Part of what I do involves reverse genealogy of sorts, as in looking up people as far back as the 16th century, finding out about their lives, and picking up BMD information as I go. It's not too helpful for those working backwards but I can recommend a few sites to check out besides the ones mentioned. The main one is archive.org/, it carries a lot of stuff that's also on Google Books but there's plenty besides, plus the search is fairly intuitive, as is the reading function, and most texts come with (an automated) text-only version for Ctrl+F-ing through. For British history in particular, you've got the National Archives (you can search freely for top-level information, but wills etc. you have to pay for to get the full thing), British History Online, which is mostly free to search and read, and for more localised information a good tip is to Google FamilySearch plus a place/church name, as the site has information on where to find records for practically every church in the UK, some of which will be free (Whitechapel St Mary for example has links to marriage records buried away in genealogy books hosted on the Internet Archive). One advantage for all you Americans out there is that there are a lot of people in the last couple of centuries who found out about their British heritage, and wrote books tracing the lives of their early immigrant ancestors back to themselves (as skipdogg found with the John Bridge family, for example). For anyone who feels like working forwards like that, this will be your Bible: https://archive.org/details/originallistsofp00hottuoft There's also a bunch of websites that reference and expand on that. Oh and a good source of reference material is through this site: http://plymouthcolony.net/resources/periodicals.html Again, you can use archive.org to search for one of those publications by name, and dive in from there, or use the contents to find something more specific. Copyright laws mean you won't find much after 1923 but there's still hundreds of publications to go through. If anyone is looking for information on their British ancestors circa the 16th and 17th centuries I can probably help out to an extent. twoday posted:I'm a historian in the Netherlands. I'm often in the archives at the Hague looking at old documents, and the national genealogy center is right next door. So if anyone needs some info from there, hit me up. Could be very useful! Plus to go with the above, there will be plenty of records from separatists who emigrated to areas such as Leiden, who then went on to America.
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 20:02
|
|
I can't get enough of are Dan 
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
Bilirubin posted:A colleague at work, who is Scottish, took his mother's clan name as his first, which is also apparently a thing. You may want to look through the "Mayflower Families Through Five Generations" silver books for Richard Warren, if you can find them. The Mayflower Society sells them, but they're 40 bucks a pop. Otherwise, there's this if you can figure out how their loaning system works, and old Mayflower Descendants may help out as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
I'm looking at these largely without checking the responses so I don't "convince" myself it's one thing or another, so apologies if these have already been sorted out. "John Bredge of selsted sonn of John Bredge of [Raynd?] & Martha ffinch of Thaxted daughter of Thomas of Brayntreed wear married ye 30th day of September" "John Bredge sonn of John Bredge of Rayne & Martha ffinch daughter of Thomas of Brayntree" "Mathew the son of John Bridge & Philip his wife was bapt." -- E: Reading back and covering other responses: "Brayntreed" would indeed easily be a variant of "Braintree", the double lowercase "ff" is why I'm reading the first location as Selsted rather than Felsted, but it could feasibly be either, Miss Finch is definitely Martha, and the son is definitely Mathew. At the end it definitely says "Philip" but I think it can be safely taken for "Philis", it's one of those things. Oh, and as for multiple children of the same name, that wasn't too uncommon back then, I think it usually occurred when men had children with multiple wives. It does create confusion though because of "elder" and "younger" distinctions - they would usually be for father and son, but in this case would be for two brothers, and I think even occasionally if there were two members of a family in a town/village with the same name, but they were uncle and nephew for example, they'd still be called the elder and the younger. HJB fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Feb 2, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
Little Miss Bossy posted:Oh that makes me soooooooooooo happy! I get absolutely infuriated by some trees I see on Ancestry... especially things that are just obviously simple mistakes, but people are too lazy to check. For example, an ancestor being listed as born in Boston, MA in 1523 even though it had not been settled yet and it's obviously Boston in Norfolk, England. I mean, take some time and care and think, people. Rant alert! Public family trees on sites like Ancestry, Geni etc. are so ridiculously inaccurate when you go back far enough that it's maddening. It's partly laziness, but I think it's more split between people assuming the records have been verified, especially if a lot of people crib from the same trees, and the simple fact that people want things to be true for the sake of bulking out their ancestry. I've seen people happily accept that they are descended from an erroneous child of a famous or important person, regardless of the evidence, because if the evidence isn't concrete, they use the lack of evidence as proof. Sure, we know that Jimmy Bloggs was baptised in 1602 in York, that there were Bloggs families there at the time, and that renowned mariner Joe Bloggs operated out of London his entire life, but none of his known children were baptised in that year, so obviously he had a brief sabbatical. I'll save everyone from the six thousand other rants I could have. To contradict myself slightly, some people did move about a lot, that's true, but they tended to be directly traceable. Oracle posted:Oh man an English based gennerd! Hey there! Wanna help me prove the guy that came over in 1594 or whatever was the same guy in England before then? I think he was a Barnham and the family society just kind of accepted it as fact without what my pedantic rear end would consider incontrovertible proof. I have a few other English/Irish lines I’d love to pick your brain about too. drat Irish and their lack of records/habit of naming everyone after other family members/having a zillion kids. I might be able to help with this as well, on the English side of things at least.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2018 10:29
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:There's a lot of crappy genealogist. There's one lady who keeps screwing with my 3rd great grandfather on familysearch and removing factually correct information regarding his wife. I go back and fix it. So much BS out there from folks it makes it hard to trust other sources. Any serious research you do has to be kept private unfortunately, most public family trees etc. on most sites are inaccurate. It's usually a case of adding bad information rather than removing good though. I guess it's to do with sourcing? Familysearch doesn't feel like the most robust in terms of compiling info like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2019 08:38
|
|