3 ms·
I’ve been thinking about this a lot. Each one of those people had a name (and a life, and thousands of ancestors themselves). How many names of these 32,000 d
by garrickvanburen 3y ago
I’ve been thinking about this a lot.
Each one of those people had a name (and a life, and thousands of ancestors themselves).
How many names of these 32,000 do you know?
While for many of my lines, I know the names to the 1600s and further.
Other lines dead end in the mid-1800s…what stories am I missing because of these all these dead ends?
- vintermann 3y ago> How many names of these 32,000 do you know? Enough to bore my family! Genealogy is fun, at least for me... With modern technology, it's easier than ever to dig into the primary sources and find out more about your ancestors. But I would warn everyone to stay away from the big commercial genealogy companies. For one, they have extremely bad privacy practices (they will never, ever, stop spamming you), for the other, they have no interest in the truth and will happily tell you what you want to hear to keep you as a customer (they encourage very bad genealogical practices).
- garrickvanburen 3y agoThis ^ I use them for pointers to resources. Archive.org is my primary research tool.
- xamuel 3y ago>I know the names to the 1600s and further That is, assuming the officially recorded parents are the actual biological parents. It's not nice to talk about in polite society, but sometimes people are mistaken about biological parenthood, most often fatherhood but sometimes motherhood too (think: babies swapped at the hospital). All it takes is one error to invalidate the whole line behind it (though, eventually the line will hit your ancestors again anyway).
- garrickvanburen 3y agoYes, trust but verify. In my lines, the mother dying in childbirth is a much more likely scenario.
- kaycebasques 3y agoHow many ancestors up to the 1600s do you know of in your case? If you count up every known ancestor up to 1699 (or 1600), what's the total?
- garrickvanburen 3y ago2,096