Genealogy (UK)
Posted: 07 Apr 2023, 18:39
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.
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.