Genealogy (UK)

[lancashire lass]

I've always been interested in my family history from when I was a child after listening to stories my parents used to tell but how to go about delving into it properly just seemed too complicated (involving going to the library and spending many hours looking at microfilche) and not really knowing where to start. The stories on my mother's side of the family were the more interesting - a Scottish ancestor "of royal descent" and another related to a famous Victorian engineer. Even the story of a relative from the First World War who accidentally became a deserter and fearing he would be shot, changed his name. But it is only after accessing online ancestry websites have I really been able to learn more about my family history and realised some tales I were told were perhaps a bit tall (or during conversations probably started off as "the same name as .... " which over time became "related to ...") but some stories have now been proven (or disputed) by documentation.

Hard to believe it has been almost 9 years ago when a fellow DTL member mentioned that one of the ancestry websites Find My Past was allowing free access over the 2014 Remembrance Weekend to allow people to access military records of their ancestors. I've since learned that a few websites allow free access over a limited period (to register, you usually have to put some credit card or other payment details in and then cancel it before the free access period ends) It opened a whole new hobby for me, one I've more or less kept up with though what I hope to get out of it has changed over time. I've also made mistakes and many a time I have even completely deleted large sections of the family tree and started again.

Imagine being a detective in your own family history. It really is all about finding the facts, following clues - sometimes they lead on to others and sometimes there is that red herring which throws you off course. You can of course, pay someone to do all the work for you but I personally got more satisfaction from doing it myself. That's not to say there hasn't been a lot of frustration when I haven't been able to find that elusive ancestor, but then I'll come across something which will make me smile such as noting that 3 months after a marriage, the couple had their first born child baptised. Or feel sad to see only 2 children from a large family had survived to adulthood.

What I have learned is that:

(i) no-one else is really interested in your particular family tree unless of course you are related and have a similar passion to know more, or have some definitive exciting connection to someone or some place that they can relate to. It's a bit like looking at other people's family holiday photos and pretending to be interested ... unless you have been to the same place and can relate to it.

(ii) some people have strange ideas about not wanting to delve into their family history. One of the most common ones are "it's history and not interested" or "I don't want to find a skeleton in the cupboard". Personally I find both comments a bit sad but that's probably because I have always liked history and I find it exciting to see a connection between some historical event which my ancestors were a part of. Secondly, why worry about what an ancestor did in the past - it happened (for whatever reason) and statistically, the chances of finding something so shocking is rare. You are more likely to see something that might make you feel sad (such as high mortality rates of infants) or your initial concept of where your ancestors originated from are blown away. I think I am fascinated how within a couple of generations that part of the past can get so quickly forgotten.

(iii) when using online ancestry sites, never assume someone else's public tree is correct and fill your own tree with names and dates from their tree. Sadly, I see it so often particularly when someone I know (for example, my grandparents) are patched into someone else's tree but after checking their sources (or more often, lack of), it's obvious we are clearly not related.

(iv) and when you do see photos or documents added to an online tree (outside what is available on that ancestry site database), it is only polite and courteous to contact the owner and ask their permission first. Very often they are more than happy to share and grateful you asked. You also learn how you are related to each other and sometimes they divulge more and you might learn something new that they hadn't posted.

(v) I can highly recommend following a course before embarking on your ancestry journey to avoid some common pitfalls. Again, this free online genealogy course was recommended by a member on DTL which I found very helpful. If nothing else, I remembered the most important thing if serious about learning about your family history and that is to verify everything (that is, find documentation which proves your findings are correct) I have now reached a stage where I am contemplating doing a DNA test but had been putting it off for some time - the main reason (apart from the financial cost) is not knowing how helpful it would be. There is now another free online course which compliments the original genealogy course called Genetic Genealogy: Researching your Family Tree using DNA which I have decided to do (it's spread over 6 weeks)

(vi) when your searches on the online ancestry sites get you nowhere, incredibly just doing a google search can bring up unexpected results. That's because the ancestry sites purchase databases so you are limited to what they have available - these databases are massive so for the most part you will still see significant progress in your family tree. Some ancestry sites have purchased rights to certain databases that others don't have - for example, Find My Past currently have the sole rights to allow access to the 1921 census records whereas I subscribed to the Ancestry website. There are several databases online which are free to access (and even create your own tree for free) including FamilySearch (more can be found about this particular site on Wikipedia)

One example of where a google search came up with a fantastic result was trying to find the parents of my Scottish ancestor - I knew her name (from census records) but without a father's name, my searches were faltering. I typed in her name in a google search, and to my amazement, there was a Scottish Marriage Index which listed her parents names as well as the marriage details I already knew. This enabled me to really crack on with the Scottish family side which I would never been able to do without that clue. However, another google search for another one of my ancestors could almost be comical - one name seemed to be interchangeable (perhaps phonetically written down, particularly if people couldn't read or write so the spelling was down to whoever was writing the record) so one Thomas Reddell was also written as Thomas Riddle. I dare anyone to google search Thomas Riddle ...

(vii) my original goal was to see how far back I could trace my family tree. Now unless you are related to royalty (and this is verified of course), baptism (not birth so dates may be within days or even years apart), marriage and burial records (again, not death though the dates are likely to be close as no-one wants a dead body hanging around) only became available from 1538 during Henry VIII's reign. Actual official birth, marriage and death records were started in 1837 and the census records as we know started in 1841 (the details on the earlier census records are much more limited compared to the hefty forms we have to fill in more recent years!) You are only allowed access to census records 100 years after they are filled in, so the latest available is the 1921 census. To obtain copies of birth, adoption, marriage, civil partnership and death certificates, go to the General Register Office - the price of certificates depend on what you order (I have been happy with ordering the pdf files for £7 and downloading and printing off my own. You do need to know some information to be sure you are purchasing the certificate of your ancestor. Personally I found death certificates a little unnerving as the cause of death can be quite detailed)

(viii) some census and historical church records may never be found due to losses through disasters such as fire, WW2 bombings, poorly preserved (mould, paper mite or water damage) or the ink has faded so badly the records cannot be read.

Secondly, most (including all their siblings) tended to name at least one of their children after the parents. So when searching a name (and approximate date of their baptism and location), you suddenly find yourself staring at several records with the same name but with names of different parents. Bear in mind that this is compounded when families rarely moved that far from where they grew up and the parish church covered large areas (before the Industrial Revolution) and early records have very limited information other than the child's name, parents names and which town or village they lived. Scroll down the pages and it is not uncommon to find line after line of familiar surnames and pinpointing which one you are directly related to is nigh impossible.

In this case, sometimes a first name that seems to crop up regularly with each generation might be helpful - let's say you find someone else's family tree with remarkably similar details (such as the exact same names of parents including similar ages (say you are looking for someone born in 1750 give or take 5 years) and location as one of your ancestors). However, you might have noticed that in that tree are first names of their parents or siblings that have never cropped up in any of your later family lines (for example, in one of my lines are William, James and Thomas which frequently crop up but the other tree are Nathanial, Geoffrey and Peter which don't)

(ix) don't concentrate on just the direct ancestors and ignore siblings because you could miss out on a lot of information. For one, you get a perspective of what life was like during that particular period by seeing how many children were born but not many actually surviving to adulthood (reasons are usually the result of poverty, poor living conditions and diseases in crowded slum areas) In another example, knowing the names of the first born son and daughter actually helped me to find the names of my 5x great grandparents as it was common practice for the first born children to be named after a father's parents.

With reference to those stories I heard when I was a child - well, I haven't found that Scottish royal connection (yet) but I have disputed being related to a famous engineer. As for the story of the WW1 deserter, if my mother had not told me that story, I would never have known who he was and never made the connection due to the name change. Sadly he died in 1958 and never reverted back to his original name but all his children had both his original surname and changed name (one died in infancy and was buried in the same grave as her grandfather)

What else have I learned?

The bulk of my ancestral lines are based in Lancashire - most lived near towns where they went to the parish church for baptisms, marriage and burials such as Warrington, Rochdale, Bury and in or near my home town Bolton. One family came from Disley and over several generations eventually ended up in Ashton under Lyne. Before the Industrial Revolution, most of them were handloom weavers and rarely moved that far from where they were born. They were literate and both men and women were able to sign their own marriage records, many of their children survived to adulthood and most seemed to have a comfortable life (difficult to know for sure but longevity well into their 70s and even into the 90s, and low number of infant deaths is usually an indication) Surprisingly, quite a few were Non-conformists which I found fascinating (one record was in a Quaker collection)

The Scottish family originated from South Leith going back generations. They moved to Glasgow about 1806 and then down to Manchester about 1827. The father and 2 sons worked in a chemical industry (production of soda ash) while his son-in-law (my 3x great grandfather) worked in a Vitriol firm (production of sulphuric acid) Both these chemicals were important in the textile industry.

There was a surprise family from London. There is a marriage record of the 4x great grandfather (a wood dealer) who married in 1808 in St Mary Newington but the 1841 and 1851 census records indicated he was originally from a place called Winkfield in Berkshire (I've been unable to confirm this) Families of my 4x and 3x great grandmothers were originally from around the east end (Whitechapel in particular but other areas as well) My 3x great grandfather was a chair maker (presumably wooden ones) and my 2x great grandfather was a wood turner (I can't be sure what he did but wood turners would have been employed to make the spindles of bobbins for the spinning of yarn) My 3x great grandparents moved from Hackney to Manchester in the 1840s and eventually to Bolton by the late 1850s/early 1860s.

From the late 1820s to mid 1830s, there was a significant change. I discovered this from the baptism records of children born to fathers whose occupation were listed as weavers prior to this change and later baptism records were then listed as labourers (and census records indicated they worked as farm labourers, or as labourers in chemical or iron works) There was also a massive migration affecting virtually most families including to Liverpool and Manchester. Most clearly in search for work as there were multiple changes of addresses as their main source of income became unsustainable with the advent of the power looms and emergence of textile mills (particularly noticeable in census records when children are born in different towns) As well as a rise in infant deaths, life expectancy dropped significantly too (in the 30s or 40s) and death records showed they died from diseases like TB and cholera associated with overcrowding and poor sanitation, or died or seriously injured in accidents at work. Census records show many children were working in cotton factories or in coal mines by the age of 12 (if not younger until laws made it illegal, but I wonder how many were still put to work but lied about their age) and very few were classed as scholars by the age of 15. By the time these children were adults and marrying by the 1860s, many were unable to read or write as indicated by the mark X (even the witnesses too).

One family line (father and son) from Bury were boatmen - the canal from Bury to Bolton (or down to Manchester) was originally built in the late 1770s to carry coal from the nearby coal mines. By the 1851 census, use of the canal was in decline after the railway was built and eventually they ended up working at the coal mines along that canal.

In the marriage record of one ancestor from Disley, his occupation is listed as gardener. Now I couldn't imagine him being a gardener like we would have today so presumed he worked at some manor house. A quick google and the only place was Lyme Park. I recently found historical information about the garden development of Lyme Park (including the payment of salaries and expenditures) and to my amazement, found both he and his father are named as having worked there. It wasn't all gardening - they often went on trips to collect new exotic plants and trees, or delivered stuff to other manor houses and estates.

There is a significant family line of coal miners going back to the mid-late 1700s, one family originally from Worsley about the time the Bridgewater canal was built. Many coal mining families married each other (out of one family of 10 siblings, at least 5 were married to different siblings of another family) and I can trace a lot of my ancestors to several coal mining families in a small area (this is where the parish records got confusing with so many similar names) I also found a marriage record of 2 cousins - I thought the same surname for both groom and bride was an error until further research and they really did have the same grandfather.

By the 1860s and 1870s, there was shift in employment type as the next generation seemed to do more skilled work as mechanics or engineering or moved into services rather than as labourers. Blacksmiths were also more common too - I assumed for shoeing horses but many were in demand in coal mines. Girls and young women still worked in cotton mills until they married and had children and then most stayed at home (some families had a lot of children - one of my 2x great grandparents had 15 children!) to look after them. Sometimes an elderly parent lived with the family so probably helped with the child minding or housework.

Some other little details emerged once I stopped charging ahead with adding names to the family tree and actually started taking note of things. It was not uncommon for women to be pregnant by the time they married. And there were some illegitimate births too (presumably the husbands-to-be bailed out) recorded as "bastard children" in baptism records. I rarely found a father's name so those lines in the family tree ended with the maternal side only. One family was fascinating to research even though I am not directly related - when my great grandfather married, I noticed on his marriage record that he was a widower. So I decided to search for his first wife. In that marriage record she had indicated her father was the brother to one of my 2x great grandfather's even though her surname was different. After more searching, I traced that surname to her great grandfather: he had a daughter (the grandmother who never married) who had an illegitimate girl (the mother who also didn't get married) who then had 4 illegitimate children herself. I had to double check my facts. And my great grandfather's second wife would have been the cousin of the first wife (providing her marriage record of the father was correct)

I also noticed that when the main earner died, families often broke up and some of the younger children or elderly widowed parent lived with the older married children and their families (in one census record, the record showed my great grandfather as the Head of the House, his wife, his son 1 years old, his nephew aged 6, his brother 15, his sister-in-law 21 (I think she would have ended up in a mental institution otherwise which were not nice places anyway - the remark written against her name was very unkind) and his brother-in-law aged 16, all living in the same house) Also, many families (related, such as an uncle, a sibling or the parents) seemed to live in the same street or very close by. I noticed this with the Scottish family and their grown up children and families. It explains how my mother remembered her grandmother having a Scottish accent even though both she and her mother had never been to Scotland.

This has turned into an unexpected novel so I hope it didn't deter anyone from not tracing their family history. All I can add is that if you do decide to trace your family trace, I wish you all the best in your searches.

[Mo]

My 3x great grandfather was a chair maker (presumably wooden ones) and my 2x great grandfather was a wood turner (I can't be sure what he did but wood turners would have been employed to make the spindles of bobbins for the spinning of yarn)

Chair legs???

I also noticed that when the main earner died, families often broke up and some of the younger children or elderly widowed parent lived with the older married children and their families (in one census record, the record showed my great grandfather as the Head of the House, his wife, his son 1 years old, his nephew aged 6, his brother 15,

My mother-in law had stories of relatives being taken in by other family members. I spent 3 years with her, she was stuck in her chair with arthritis and Parkinsons, and i was stuck 120 miles from home for 2 weeks at a time (swapping with OH). So I decided to try to document all the family photo albums. Some interesting stories, one photo was a Nightingale nurse. But quite a tangle to sort out. My husbands grandmothers album is the most higgledy piggledy.

[lancashire lass]

My 3x great grandfather was a chair maker (presumably wooden ones) and my 2x great grandfather was a wood turner (I can't be sure what he did but wood turners would have been employed to make the spindles of bobbins for the spinning of yarn)

Chair legs???

I did wonder that - my 2x great grandfather married the daughter of another chairmaker in Manchester (who owned a business and employed workers) so it is possible the connection is there.

Also, I "inherited" a little table (it belonged to my grandmother's sister and when she moved to a home, it nearly ended up in a skip so my mother rescued it and of course I eventually ended up with it) I don't know if there's a proper name for these type of tables - imagine a Victorian or Edwardian front room and the table is tall (well, taller than a coffee or side table) with a round (or in this case hexagonal / 6 sided) top, the table leg either just a single one (or in my case, 3 spindles in a cluster in the middle with a little decoration you would get from wood turning) and the base has 3 feet. All I can think of is one being used for a potted plant like a fern or maybe a table lamp (they would have been paraffin lamps if there was no electricity) Anyway, the table top and the base feet look home-made (definitely not a polished antique but painted in a very dark almost black varnish) but the legs do look professionally done. Now it may not have anything to do with this 2x great grandfather (for all I know it might be someone's woodworking project at school) but my grandmother and her sister were his granddaughters.

The census with all the different relatives took some doing to find out who was who. Once I had worked out how they all came to be living in the same household, I remember once visiting a local cemetery with my mother where we came across a patch of grass and she told me it was a pauper's grave (there are no gravestones) where several of our relatives were buried. I suspect it was this family:

his nephew aged 6,

this one threw me for some time. He had the same surname as my great grandfather so I had concentrated my searches on his all his brothers but eventually I found the nephew's birth record - one of my great grandfather's sisters had a son out of wedlock. I don't know what happened to the mother and there was no mention of the father in the record.

his brother 15

This was a big family - there were 14 siblings, my great grandfather was the 3rd eldest. The brother was born in 1888 in the same year their father (aged 40) died. Their mother died in 1896.

The brother died in 1915 in the 1st World War at Gallipoli where he is buried. I have his war medal (I found it when clearing my mother's house)

[Mo]

Also, I "inherited" a little table (it belonged to my grandmother's sister and when she moved to a home, it nearly ended up in a skip so my mother rescued it and of course I eventually ended up with it) I don't know if there's a proper name for these type of tables - imagine a Victorian or Edwardian front room and the table is tall (well, taller than a coffee or side table) with a round (or in this case hexagonal / 6 sided) top, the table leg either just a single one (or in my case, 3 spindles in a cluster in the middle with a little decoration you would get from wood turning) and the base has 3 feet.

An occasional table?
and the poet

[lancashire lass]

I did a google search and an occasional table is what I would call a side table and not the same. Further searching and nothing quite matches it - the closest is this Victorian cast iron "conservatory" stand but nowhere near as ornate - the base with the 3 feet are similar but much plainer with that similar curve down to the floor, instead of a single pillar, 3 spindles are about 8 inches apart from each other in the middle, the table top (hexagonal flat top) with a diameter of about 18 inches, height about 3.5-4 feet tall (taller than my kitchen table) I'd take a photo if it wasn't wedged in the corner surrounded by furniture (it's where I have a table lamp)

[lancashire lass]

What I have learned is that:

Forgot to mention one more piece of advice:

Think outside the box when you can't find that elusive record - you probably did bring it up in a search but didn't have all the facts and something had changed that you didn't know about. For example:

My 3x great grandparents moved from Bolton to Liverpool sometime between the baptism of their first daughter (1826) in Bolton and their son (1830) in Liverpool. In their marriage record, his occupation was a weaver and just like so many handloom weavers about that time, they had to search for other work and that took them into the cities - Liverpool was a busy commercial port, in particular, the import of cotton (probably from the US) and export of goods during the 18 and 19th century. In the baptism records in Liverpool, his occupation was listed as a Warehouse man (presumably on the docks as their first home there was close by) They had 4 more children in Liverpool: a son (1832-1834), my 2x great grandfather (1836), a daughter (1838) and another son (1840-1841)

In the 1851 census in Bolton, my 3x great grandmother was remarried (I found the 1848 marriage record with both her previous marriage name and her father's name to confirm it was the same woman) and my 2x great grandfather (to make it more confusing, his surname in the census was spelled wrong) was the 15 year old step-son in the family (there were no other siblings from Liverpool)

I tried to find the death record for the 3x great grandfather but there were too many with the same name to know which one without a known age or death date.

I got absolutely nowhere searching for the Liverpool 1841 census. I decided instead to search using the mother's name and was still unsuccessful so I decided to search for my 2x great grandfather (well he must have been alive in 1841 otherwise I wouldn't be here!) Eventually, I found him as a 5 year old living with his grandmother (my 4x great grandmother) in Bolton and ... even that wasn't straight forward. The grandmother had remarried (different surname to what I was expecting so I nearly dismissed that census except the fact the grandson was born in Liverpool which was niggling me) So I had to search her marriage record to confirm she was the one in the census.

I tried searching for the other children born in Liverpool and knew at least one had died as an infant, but what had happened to the remaining 3? Why weren't they in Bolton? Who else might be looking after them? Nothing. I nearly gave up when I suddenly remembered ... there was the first born daughter baptised in Bolton which I'd forgotten about, and when I put her name in the search box, I got a hit. The mother was there too but her name Elizabeth had been spelled Elzbth which obviously didn't match any of my searches (at one point I had even tried Betty which was the name she used in the 1851 census) She was already a widow in that 1841 census in Liverpool with a one year old son - that narrowed down the possible death date of her husband.

I found his death record in the GRO index and confirmed it was indeed my 3x great grandfather - he had died of consumption aged 39. Now I also had a rough birth year - unfortunately I am still searching for his baptism record and am now beginning to wonder if he ever did get baptised (I couldn't find him anywhere in the Lancashire Online Parish Records) or from a general search in the UK (and yes, I looked at every one with the same name but nothing matched) The only other option is that the records have been lost with time.

Misspelling of surnames is not uncommon. I've already mentioned the interchangeable Reddell / Riddle name in London. Another example is a 3x great grandmother who married in 1841 - in that marriage record, her surname (and father) is definitely spelled Collier (the handwritten "r" at the end matched the "r" in the husband's surname Turner) When I tried to find the father's 1841 census record, it was spelled Collinger (both his and his daughter's first names (also in this census so was done before she got married that same year), were distinctly different to able to get a good match (and his occupation was the same in both records) so I knew it was the same family) I eventually found her baptism record and to confuse matters, it was spelled ... Collins. I'm glad I found that baptism record because I was then able to trace the Collins family line which I had been unable to using the other surnames.

[lancashire lass]

my original goal was to see how far back I could trace my family tree.

don't concentrate on just the direct ancestors

I can highly recommend following a course

What else have I learned?

At some point, adding new names to the tree just isn't enough (even then, the further you go back in time and rely on church records alone, the less confident you become that you are related to that person)- you soon realise that they are just names, and unless you are descended from some famous person, they become meaningless after a while. And when you really struggle to find those missing ancestors, the enthusiasm that got you started can start to wane. I remember when I first looked at the earlier census records and saw that many of my ancestors were "just labourers", I realise now that I did them a disservice. A census record is just a snapshot in time - imagine a 100 or 200 years from now when one of your descendants looks at the census records you filled in and sees something about you that wasn't particularly interesting and dismisses it before moving on to someone else. If you were alive, wouldn't you want to say "hang on, you have no idea what my life was like back then compared to your life today. You don't see my accomplishments or what I had to endure".

I know from my own personal life that some distant relative may not know that my family lived abroad for 13 years - there'll be a 1961 census, the 1971 census will be missing before I, or rather my parents (the head of the household being my father), filled in the 1981 census. That is a 20 year gap. Thereafter I filled in my own census forms in while living in Nottingham. Even my time spent in London will be missing as that happened in between the 1981 and 1991 census. If I'm lucky there might be some archived material of my education and employment but that seems unlikely.

And in the meantime, the question of whether future censuses will take place is currently being discussed - after all, they are meant to be used to assist in planning services such as housing, medical care and so on which is being shifted to local authorities. What impact will that have on future genealogists?

Most of us probably learned about the Industrial Revolution while in school - I even remember my home town Bolton was mentioned (bear in mind this was while I was in school in South Africa) because Samuel Crompton (1753-1827) invented the Spinning Mule which allowed large scale manufacture of thread which was key to the rapid emergence of the textile industry (prior to that, the production of fabric from weaving was limited by the availability of yarn) And Lancashire in particular was central to the textile industry (I know there were others around the country) during that period mainly because of the climatic conditions (that is, availability of water was key to powering the machinery as well as the damp conditions made it less likely for the fibres to snap during spinning) As most of my ancestors originated in Lancashire, the impact of the Industrial Revolution affected their lives so much. That's not to say that's all what happened.

This is where knowing more about history adds to your ancestors stories. Censuses were very important during this early period of the Industrial Revolution because the mass migration to find work impacted towns (originally market places where people went to sell their cloth or animals/crops and purchased what they needed) that were unprepared for the rapid influx of people. Lack of housing meant high rent and slum areas grew, poor sanitation and consequently rise in communal diseases and lack of medical facilities (even medical knowledge was lacking then) meant high death rates. Production of food for ordinary working people declined as they moved from an agrarian rural life to an industrial one, and their diet became basic and poor in nutrients. Poorhouse or workhouse institutions and orphanages appeared in greater numbers as poverty increased. And while all this was going on, there was the Irish famine and migration of families as well as the impact of the Napoleonic War on food availability.

Of course, not everyone lived in squalor as some people took advantage of the opportunities and learned new skills, founded other industries or gained wealth in other ways. And all the while, innovation and inventions during the Victorian period helped to shape not only the economy but the lives of people, even today. Even in my lifetime there have been significant change in technology and society over the years, "boom and bust" as the economy grew and crashed, times of high unemployment and recession, so in many ways I can almost relate to how those people felt about the changes all around them back then. Some improved their way of life, while others were detrimental.

Even knowing about these major historical events is not enough to know about your ancestors. This is where local history plays a part. Finding more about what was happening where they actually lived. Everyone's family past will see similarities as well as differences in their local history compared to others. For example, the building of the canals used to transport goods (mainly coal but others like Wedgewood to transport fragile porcelain) to the towns, and how the railway then took over were important in my family history.

So I decided to learn more - as well as local research (much of which can be found online if you know where to look), I also decided to do a few (free) online courses where my knowledge was a bit lacking. I was curious about the Quakers after finding a baptism record and followed a course called Radical Spirituality: the Early History of the Quakers. Then there was the Working Lives in the Factories and Mills: Textile heritage of the factory workers, Working Lives on Britain's Railways: Railway History and Heritage and Working Lives in the Coal Mines: Mining History and Heritage which were all relevant. In addition, publications from local historians about specific industries (tend to be thin paperback booklets) and areas of interest. All these "extras" help to build up a better picture of that historical family past.

[Spreckly]

Ted and I did our family trees after he suddenly realised that he did not know his paternal grandmother's name. She died when his Dad was young. We spent literally hours trawling websites, eventually using Ancestry co.uk. I also used Genes Reunited. Both were incredibly useful. Apart from my birth family (Mother's side only, she refused to share identifiable details about my bf), I did my parents' ancestry, and also that of my sons.

Ted did find his grandmother's name, and met some relations through searching.

On one of our visits to Kent and Essex, where we both originated, we visited a church, where some of Ted's ancestors were buried. The Vicar was there, and took us to a large chest, which contained a copy of the will of one of them. Isn't that amazing.

I have some rather large files! A school friend of mine did her ancestry the very hard way, visiting church records, before the days of the internet.

[lancashire lass]

There is now another free online course which compliments the original genealogy course called Genetic Genealogy: Researching your Family Tree using DNA which I have decided to do (it's spread over 6 weeks)

Well, that didn't happen as I had originally planned ... but probably time I did do something about it sooner rather than later. I have decided to do the DNA test! I often get emails of special offers and this time did look like a good one. Several months ago, one of my (far far) distant relatives had contacted me via the Ancestry website enquiring about one of my entries and she had pointed out that she could confirm she was related to a person in my family tree (I had initially dismissed the Liverpool address but after further research have since changed my mind) by the DNA test. Another had contacted me about someone else (on this occasion I was able to prove that my research was verifiable with documentation) and he mentioned that the DNA test had opened up a whole new world for him and was worth doing. That has piqued my interest in the topic.

The package with the test kit arrived last week so I need to activate the account and send off the saliva sample soon. Despite having a science background, I still feel a little uncertain of how the DNA test results work. Yet those who have already taken the test seem quite confident of their search results as a result - if they can do it, then surely I should find it easier? I learned a lot from the first Genealogy course so it makes sense to do some studying in preparation of this new source material (apparently it can take several weeks before you get the results so still time to do the course)

[Trev62]

I have decided to do the DNA test! I often get emails of special offers and this time did look like a good one.

I am not sure how these work for tracing back your family tree as I understood they only reveal a person's ancestral roots.

Does the Company doing the test allow you to access data from others who have also taken DNA test so possible links can be investigated?

[lancashire lass]

I am not sure how these work for tracing back your family tree as I understood they only reveal a person's ancestral roots.

Does the Company doing the test allow you to access data from others who have also taken DNA test so possible links can be investigated?

The test does more than reveal a person's ancestral roots (which I'm also keen to know about) And yes, you do need to be able to compare your data with others who have also taken the test to make that connection where you share familial genetic markers - the paper trail gets limited the further back you go in time (that is, before 1837 when births, marriage and death records were a requirement replacing the baptism, marriage and burial church records) Many a time I am uncertain who is the ancestor when a parish record with identical names and birth year have different parents but no other information ... you can't really go much farther without knowing whether you are going down the wrong route (and ending up with a fictional family tree - for example, my 4x great grandfather from Scotland I am certain is from a family of Stewarts living in South Leith near Edinburgh yet on the Ancestry website, many other public trees with the exact same 4x great grandparents have indicated a Royal bloodline all the way to Robert the Bruce ... curiously, there is an old family story that there is a Royal connection which makes me wonder but at the same time, the documented evidence says otherwise. This would be one of those cases with a definitive answer, hopefully!)

I suspect the database may be limited to whichever ancestry site you are subscribed to but I'm not entirely sure of that. Just exactly how it works is something I'd like to learn more hence the course which would be a good place to start.

[lancashire lass]

I am certain is from a family of Stewarts living in South Leith near Edinburgh yet on the Ancestry website, many other public trees with the exact same 4x great grandparents have indicated a Royal bloodline all the way to Robert the Bruce

I should point out that many people don't verify their findings but blindly add other people's tree to their own - as I said before, totally fictitious and more wishful thinking than careful research. The "many" trees I mention seem to have latched on to just one tree and copied it - the more trees you see with the identical information, the more it looks like they all have it right but look more closely and if the original poster got it wrong or not verified any documentation ... In this particular instance, my initial research was based on traditional naming of children:

where the father names his first born children after his parents names, and the second born after his wife's. The first born girl was Isobel, the second was Jean. The first born boy was William and the second born was Thomas. Before the family moved to Glasgow, all their children were baptised in South Leith. By using the names William and Isobel, I found my 4x great grandfather's baptism record (and the mother's maiden name which are included on all Scottish baptism records) who also lived in South Leith.

And then verified as much as I could (finding baptism records) In the case of my 4x great grandfather, he was baptised in 1775 (I have that record) I found his burial record in Manchester (near where the family lived) of 1836 - the man in this record was aged 60 which would put his birth round about 1775 (give or take a few months) It's still guesswork but a closer match than the royal bloodline everyone else decided to take.

The other thing about the names of children is that it tends to be traditional to name some of them from siblings (that is, the parents siblings or other close relative) In the Royal bloodline, the siblings names in the other trees didn't match any of the children of my 4x great grandparents which is another reason why I dismissed it.

[Trev62]

I should point out that many people don't verify their findings

Unfortunately that statement applies to many situations!

I can follow your logic/thought process in cross matching the information you find to verify things. It must take a lot of time and patience to do this.

[lancashire lass]

It must take a lot of time and patience to do this.

... yes, it is definitely time consuming and needs a lot of patience trying to piece things together. Sometimes I get it wrong and have to start again. Other times I have spent ages having to research other possible leads before dismissing them. A classic one was my 2x great grandfather born about 1837. In each of the 1861, 1871 and 1881 census he wrote a different town as his place of birth (Oldham, Rochdale, Middleton) Worse, the surname Whitworth is quite common round there and I spent ages looking at every single census record with the same name and rough date of birth (census records can have up to a 5 year difference in age) before realising they had their own families and dismissed them.

In the original search, I got a hit in Leigh but as I was focusing on areas round Rochdale, I dropped it off my research. Then one day I was going back to his wife's family origins (it's not uncommon to revisit things you have already researched in case there is something new) and realised she and her father and sister were living in Leigh in the 1841 and 1851 census ... so I decided to have another look at the Leigh census for the Whitworth family and found them! I discovered the father was born in Thornham (Lancashire) and trying to know more, I naturally looked it up:

Thornham is a suburban area straddling Middleton, Royton and Rochdale in Greater Manchester, England.[1][2] The area crosses the border of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham and the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale

well, that explains the Oldham, Rochdale, Middleton "birth places" of my 2x great grandfather who was probably only about 3 - 5 years old when the family had moved to Leigh.

[lancashire lass]

The stories on my mother's side of the family were the more interesting - a Scottish ancestor "of royal descent"

With reference to those stories I heard when I was a child - well, I haven't found that Scottish royal connection (yet)

Well, some exciting news. It seems my mother wasn't the only one who was told that same story ... I received a message from someone on the Ancestry website (I don't quite know the relationship - she would be my cousin 4x removed or something like that: our common ancestor is our 4x great grandfather from Scotland who moved with his family in the 1820s to Manchester. My 3x great grandmother married and moved to Kearsley near Bolton, while her brother and family moved to Liverpool) To the best of my knowledge, the 2 families did not keep in contact so the origin of the "royal" descendant story must have been before then.

However, who that royal ancestor is, is still obscure. It has certainly peeked my interest once again but at the moment I'm still stuck with my 5x great grandfather born in 1730 and can't seem to go much further back than that.