PDA

View Full Version : How much of your ancestry have you documented?



History-of-Things
09-02-2012, 07:39 AM
How much of your ancestry have you documented?

My calculations:
Second great-grandparents 93.75% (one great-grandfather was born out of wedlock and took his mother's name)
Fourth great-grandparents 93.75%
Sixth great-grandparents 50% (even, believe it or not)
Eighth great-grandparents 10.64%

For me, the eighth great-grandparents is where I get back into the 1600s, and close to the country of origin before the American immigration. Though my genealogy is the work of grandparents, aunts, and myself, it was interesting to learn how little of my ancestry I actually know. Of course part of the percentage should be a direct reflection of the survival of documentation across time. How do your percentages stack up?

Calamus
09-02-2012, 09:38 AM
How much of your ancestry have you documented?

My calculations:
Second great-grandparents 93.75% (one great-grandfather was born out of wedlock and took his mother's name)
Fourth great-grandparents 93.75%
Sixth great-grandparents 50% (even, believe it or not)
Eighth great-grandparents 10.64%

For me, the eighth great-grandparents is where I get back into the 1600s, and close to the country of origin before the American immigration. Though my genealogy is the work of grandparents, aunts, and myself, it was interesting to learn how little of my ancestry I actually know. Of course part of the percentage should be a direct reflection of the survival of documentation across time. How do your percentages stack up?

For me it is:
Second Great-Grandparents 100%
Fourth Great-Grandparents 100%
Sixth Great-Grandparents 95.3%
Eighth Great-Grandparents 66.2%

Eighth great-grandparents are back in the 1600s also. Mostly Norwegian ancestry. Norwegian records are fairly good back to the 1590s for the area most of my ancestors are from.

History-of-Things
09-02-2012, 04:33 PM
^I'm envious! Wish I knew that many. You really must have a solid sense of origins!

scottraveler
09-02-2012, 04:47 PM
Every line back at least to about 1750; some of my lines in Norway back to 1550.

scottraveler
09-02-2012, 04:49 PM
^I'm envious! Wish I knew that many. You really must have a solid sense of origins!

He can probably thank the bygdeboks for that!

AJL
09-07-2012, 12:39 AM
I have all my second great-grandparents reliably documented. Testing of about 10 relatives from different branches verifies the trail 100% to this point.

However, around third great-grandparents things start to break down. I have all but a handful of ancestors on paper at this point, but there are already doubts raised by genetic research. Foremost among these: I have a case where there are a large number of autosomal matches to a surname of a neighbour of one set of of my third great-grandparents. Records start to get quite sparse before the 1850s for many of my lines, and while I have a few ancestors quite well traced and confirmed by genetics into the 17th and sometimes even 16th century, most of the lines dead-end by the 18th.

Kwheaton
09-08-2012, 09:36 PM
100% of my 3rd great grandparents
70% of my 4th great grandparents
52% of my 5th great grandparents
28% of my 6th great grandparents
21% of my 7th great grandparents

So overall ten generations a pitiful 35% after 40 years on and off.:)

Ian B
04-04-2013, 02:16 AM
I can trace my maternal line back at far as 1790, and then hit a brick wall due to the loss of Irish records during the Civil War.

This equates to fifth great grandparents=100%.

geebee
04-04-2013, 06:12 AM
I can go back pretty easily as far as all 16 of my 2nd great grandparents. This is in spite of the fact that my maternal grandmother's parents were never married -- at least to each other. (Her father was married to a different woman.) It was a rather sad situation in a little town, but she was eventually acknowledged and accepted by at least some of her half siblings.

Beyond that, I know the identities of 27 of my 32 3rd great grandparents, but only 38 of my 4th great grandparents. It declines pretty rapidly beyond this point, but I know a few ancestors back into the 16th century, and two ancestors were born prior to the end of the 15th century (just one of them was before Columbus' first voyage).

100% of 5th great grandparents is very impressive, although 1790 for me is more likely to reflect just a 3rd great grandparent. In fact, my immigrant surname-line ancestor was born in about 1728 and would have been a 5th great grandfather.

Unfortunately, while I know he was from the loosely-defined "Palatinate" I don't have a village name. Interestingly, though, I have a 46/46 Y marker match with a man who appears to share no closer common ancestry to me that the immigrant himself.

Grossvater
04-07-2013, 06:36 PM
I know all the names of my second-great-grandparents except one. All I know is my great-great-grandmother was married for decades, had a bunch of kids with her husband, and then got a divorce. My great-grandfather was born two years later in 1882. All we know about his father is that he was a "traveling man" and that his surname may have been Wilson. I don't know if "traveling man" means a traveling salesman or an 1880s version of a hobo.

After finding out my wife's fascinating mixed ancestry and my African-American son-in-law's Y-DNA, I just sent off for a 23andMe kit for myself. I'm hoping perhaps I carry enough of my great-grandfather's DNA to make a match with someone and maybe solve the mystery. Incidentally, I don't resemble my great-grandfather in the slightest. I still remember him even though he died in 1966.

I know 78% of my third-great-grandparents and then things taper off drastically, although I have a bunch of lines back to the Renaissance and beyond. I can only get my Y-DNA line back to 1816 although I know the name of that man's father. There aren't a lot of records on line for central Germany before that.

AJL
04-07-2013, 06:41 PM
I know all the names of my second-great-grandparents except one. All I know is my great-great-grandmother was married for decades, had a bunch of kids with her husband, and then got a divorce.

I think I already asked you if you could find a divorce filed and you said it wasn't kept on record (or wasn't available).

That's a shame; I was able to glean much insight from the 1930s' separation agreement between my great-grandparents, which was in the fonds of my great-grandmother's lawyer. You might have similar luck finding information if you can find out who your GG grandmother's lawyer was, and if that lawyer gave his papers away to an archive.

Grossvater
04-07-2013, 07:29 PM
I think I already asked you if you could find a divorce filed and you said it wasn't kept on record (or wasn't available).

That's a shame; I was able to glean much insight from the 1930s' separation agreement between my great-grandparents, which was in the fonds of my great-grandmother's lawyer. You might have similar luck finding information if you can find out who your GG grandmother's lawyer was, and if that lawyer gave his papers away to an archive.

If you did ask me that, I'm not remembering it. How do you like that...I can remember someone who died in 1966 but I can't remember you asking about the divorce! It is a really good idea, though...worth checking into. I'll have to see if the Oregon divorce records for the late 1870s are still extant.

AJL
04-07-2013, 07:43 PM
If you did ask me that, I'm not remembering it. How do you like that...I can remember someone who died in 1966 but I can't remember you asking about the divorce! It is a really good idea, though...worth checking into. I'll have to see if the Oregon divorce records for the late 1870s are still extant.

I might have been misremembering -- either way it could be useful to follow up on!

RGM
04-11-2013, 07:35 AM
I have all of my great-great-grandparents and the full names of 26/32 third-great-grandparents. Beyond that, not much, just a handful of fourth-great-grandfathers. All my lines but one go back to Ireland, and records there pretty much die out in the early 1800s.

That's part of the reason I turned to DNA testing.

Tolan
10-20-2013, 06:06 AM
I started genealogy in 2005, and I am far from finished!
The French parish registers can start to 1550's (but it depends on parishes). I am also using the notarial archives and for Brittany before the french revolution, the archives of jurisdictions (guardianship, sealed after death, records of hearings ect...).
100% of my great grandparents 5rd
97% of my 6th great grandparents
85% of my 7th great grandparents
65% of my 8th great grandparents
25% of my 9th great grandparents
4% of my 10th great grandparents
0.1% of my 11th great grandparents

(2293 ancestors)

Anglecynn
10-20-2013, 05:28 PM
Most go back to the early 19th century, but a couple of lines go back to the 17th/18th century.

rms2
01-10-2014, 12:39 PM
I know the names of all of my great grandparents, although there is some question about the given name of my paternal grandmother's father: one record says William, another says George. I know the names of 10 of my sixteen second great grandparents, but that means I have six big holes in my pedigree that obviously only grow wider on those lines as one goes back further in time.

I only know the names of 11 of my 32 third great grandparents. Lots of gaps at that level.

I have a few lines that have been traced back quite far, but my y-dna (surname) line only extends to my third great grandfather, who was born in West Virginia in 1804, when what is now West Virginia was part of Virginia. My primary genealogical quest, and one of the main reasons I got into dna testing in the first place, is extending my knowledge of that line back to the immigrant. I haven't done that yet, but I do know a lot more about his likely place of origin than I did when I began, and I have been disabused of a few cherished myths that were obstacles to my search, as well. So, even though I have not yet achieved my goal, dna testing has been of great benefit to me just the same.

On my mtDNA line, I'm stuck at my great grandmother, who was born in Lauderdale County, Alabama, in March of 1878.

One of my biggest problems is lack of time to pursue the paper trail. If I am ever able to actually retire, perhaps I will be able to spend more time searching.

Alessio B. Bedini
01-10-2014, 03:33 PM
I made a jpeg file with Heredis

Gray Fox
05-27-2014, 12:47 AM
My main hurtle at this point in time is travel and the funds to just do it willy nilly. At least with regards to my y-line, I have a pretty good assumption that I can find much by simply travelling to Winchester, Frederick County Va. They were Anglican and were involved in politics and the military, so in theory I should be able to find a lot with pension and vestry records for the parish being almost exclusively located in the local libraries. I also have made a few connections via Facebook with descendants of the original y-line in Devonshire. They seem to know much, but rarely write back :(

Baltimore1937
05-27-2014, 03:34 AM
I am lazy and rely a lot on Ancestry entries. I noticed that after the British took over New Jersey, that the Anglican church became official and was involved with civil affairs. For example, people married in an Anglican church or chapel for inheritance rights, even though they remained loyal to their own church (married twice). That could be why Ancestry has a record of my (presumed) maternal (Keziah Hunt) ancestress' marriage to Stephen Biles in New Jersey.

Tįltos
05-27-2014, 04:07 AM
I cannot get beyond my great grandfather on my direct paternal line. I can get back to my GGGG-grandmother on my direct maternal line. Since when are the girls supposed to be easier to paper trail??

Gray Fox
05-27-2014, 08:24 AM
I am lazy and rely a lot on Ancestry entries. I noticed that after the British took over New Jersey, that the Anglican church became official and was involved with civil affairs. For example, people married in an Anglican church or chapel for inheritance rights, even though they remained loyal to their own church (married twice). That could be why Ancestry has a record of my (presumed) maternal (Keziah Hunt) ancestress' marriage to Stephen Biles in New Jersey.

I do that quite a bit myself! It requires a bit of work, especially if you have brick walled, but in my experience a lot of the work is more or less already done. Dna testing has been a god send for me in confirming the link back to the old country. It would basically be guesswork if I didn't have that backing. So I am eternally grateful to the hardworking geneticists. My Y-line were Anglican upon their arrival to the new world, though as views on the British began to sour they quickly converted to other denominations. Mostly Methodist and Baptist, but a few singletons switched to Presbyterianism. Causing much confusion for me as one of them owned a Scots Gaelic bible. My cousin from "across the pond" stated that his family were still practicing Anglicans up until his Great Grandfather immigrated to Kansas.

evon
05-27-2014, 08:30 AM
I can go back to around 1500 on many lineages, but also some that i am uncertain about going further then 100 years back...But Norway have one of the best documented populations in the world, with most of it digitized and available free online...

Gray Fox
05-27-2014, 08:30 AM
I cannot get beyond my great grandfather on my direct paternal line. I can get back to my GGGG-grandmother on my direct maternal line. Since when are the girls supposed to be easier to paper trail??

:lol: That is odd! Its been absolute hell tracing my Maternal lines. As you can see by my signature I only have traced, confidently, to the mid 1800's. For some unknown reason when I got into this hobby I figured the Maternal line wouldn't be as hard to trace. I guess that was based on the stereotype that mostly women do this hobby. I quickly learned otherwise!

AJL
05-27-2014, 04:47 PM
A lot depends on whether one's maternal lines are prominent or covered well in existing research, as well as where they lived.

My maternal line is fairly well documented back from The Rusling Family, Colver-Culver Family Genealogy, Early Germans of New Jersey, Sketch of the Fisher Family of Old Amwell Township, and a couple of other books. I did have to do some work before that, since the Boss/Bost and Youngblood lineages aren't as well documented, and my work is ongoing.

Tįltos
05-27-2014, 07:00 PM
:lol: That is odd! Its been absolute hell tracing my Maternal lines. As you can see by my signature I only have traced, confidently, to the mid 1800's. For some unknown reason when I got into this hobby I figured the Maternal line wouldn't be as hard to trace. I guess that was based on the stereotype that mostly women do this hobby. I quickly learned otherwise!
I know right! I really thought my paternal was going to be easier. HA HA HA on me! The only thing I have been able to find out was with DNA testing that apparently this branch was Jewish at some point. Even my brother's closest matches GD of 3 we have no idea how we all connect. The common denominator looks like Ukraine for three out of the five of us.

For my direct maternal line really it was just sheer luck I think. My cousin and I found each other on the Ancestry message board which is free. My maternal great grandmother was the sister of my cousin's father's mother. Damn that's way too wordy to think about! Anyway we collaborated together and found records. It was great fun. She lives on the other side of the country, and had been totally unknown to me. It was really cool because her parents had been in touch with my great Aunt years ago. So there was some good information from my Aunt that was given to them for us to go on as well.

My tree on Ancestry I have it named after all the female surname changes in the direct maternal line. It's kind of funny seeing a Polish, Italian, German, English surnames strung together. My daughter when she takes it over will lead with an Irish one. Hopefully it will make it easier for future generations with that hodgepodge!

vettor
05-27-2014, 07:10 PM
I know right! I really thought my paternal was going to be easier. HA HA HA on me! The only thing I have been able to find out was with DNA testing that apparently this branch was Jewish at some point. Even my brother's closest matches GD of 3 we have no idea how we all connect. The common denominator looks like Ukraine for three out of the five of us.

For my direct maternal line really it was just sheer luck I think. My cousin and I found each other on the Ancestry message board which is free. My maternal great grandmother was the sister of my cousin's father's mother. Damn that's way too wordy to think about! Anyway we collaborated together and found records. It was great fun. She lives on the other side of the country, and had been totally unknown to me. It was really cool because her parents had been in touch with my great Aunt years ago. So there was some good information from my Aunt that was given to them for us to go on as well.

My tree on Ancestry I have it named after all the female surname changes in the direct maternal line. It's kind of funny seeing a Polish, Italian, German, English surnames strung together. My daughter when she takes it over will lead with an Irish one. Hopefully it will make it easier for future generations with that hodgepodge!

if you are searching Italian maiden names, take note that pre-italy ( Italy ONLY formed 1861) women where not allowed to take the husband surname, after 1861 to 1975 they had an option to take the husband surnames , but since 1975 it is forbidden

Italy

In Italy since 1975 a woman legally[citation needed] keeps her birth name. Only in informal situations, she may add her husband's name to the end of her name linked with the word in, nei/nel (less common) or cg./cgt., shortened forms of coniugata, married (very uncommon): for example, if Alessandra Lombardi marries Michele Rossi she can then use the form Alessandra Lombardi in Rossi or Alessandra Lombardi nei Rossi or even Alessandra Lombardi cg. Rossi.

In a small number of cases it is possible that the wife can add just the husband's name without the in addition (Alessandra Lombardi Rossi). Only in rare cases is a woman informally referred to with just her husband's surname (Alessandra Rossi). Sometimes, she can be referred to with her husband's surname, followed by nata, born, and then by her surname (Alessandra Rossi nata Lombardi). That is no longer common in younger generations, though.

When the husband dies, in the same informal cases in can be replaced by ved., abbreviation of vedova, widow; Alessandra Lombardi ved. Rossi, Alessandra Lombardi vedova Rossi.

Reasons why a surname can be changed formally on any records have to be approved by the court.

Non Italian Citizens getting married in Italy will not have their surname changed in Italy, brides can request for their surname change in their home country though.[27]


so, for me once I understood the rules and also that the north of Italy in most occasions did not change, then I could easily track down my maternal line to 1715

Tįltos
05-27-2014, 07:19 PM
if you are searching Italian maiden names, take note that pre-italy ( Italy ONLY formed 1861) women where not allowed to take the husband surname, after 1861 to 1975 they had an option to take the husband surnames , but since 1975 it is forbidden

Italy

In Italy since 1975 a woman legally[citation needed] keeps her birth name. Only in informal situations, she may add her husband's name to the end of her name linked with the word in, nei/nel (less common) or cg./cgt., shortened forms of coniugata, married (very uncommon): for example, if Alessandra Lombardi marries Michele Rossi she can then use the form Alessandra Lombardi in Rossi or Alessandra Lombardi nei Rossi or even Alessandra Lombardi cg. Rossi.

In a small number of cases it is possible that the wife can add just the husband's name without the in addition (Alessandra Lombardi Rossi). Only in rare cases is a woman informally referred to with just her husband's surname (Alessandra Rossi). Sometimes, she can be referred to with her husband's surname, followed by nata, born, and then by her surname (Alessandra Rossi nata Lombardi). That is no longer common in younger generations, though.

When the husband dies, in the same informal cases in can be replaced by ved., abbreviation of vedova, widow; Alessandra Lombardi ved. Rossi, Alessandra Lombardi vedova Rossi.

Reasons why a surname can be changed formally on any records have to be approved by the court.

Non Italian Citizens getting married in Italy will not have their surname changed in Italy, brides can request for their surname change in their home country though.[27]


so, for me once I understood the rules and also that the north of Italy in most occasions did not change, then I could easily track down my maternal line to 1715
Thanks vettor, that is good to know. I'm okay in Italy though. I have my Mother's father's family documented in a small Arbėreshė village in southern Italy.

Last year I even finally found documentation through church records for my Father's mother's family. It's my direct paternal line that remains an elusive pain in the A$#!

Tolan
05-29-2014, 02:52 AM
I can go back to around 1500 on many lineages, but also some that i am uncertain about going further then 100 years back...But Norway have one of the best documented populations in the world, with most of it digitized and available free online...

This is also the case in France. Over 90% of parish or civil registers are online, and often free.
This has democratized genealogy, and probably, France is the country with the most genealogists in Europe.
However, many do not do research themselves and recopy the other trees. And there is now a lot of errors on trees for the years prior to 1700! :\


I prefer to make my research myself, it takes longer, but I know the value of my research, between what is certain and what is not.
It is necessary to know when to stop, when we have no sufficient proofs to support a filliation!

MikeWhalen
05-29-2014, 03:29 PM
While not nearly as successful as some reporting, I think I have ended up doing fairly well for a guy that has 15/16 5th generation or Great Great Grandparents coming from the British Isles. (Given IRA bombings, WW2 bombings, general war and fires and so forth)

I also got lucky on my moms side cause I had 2 cousins independently go very deep into pen and paper genealogy (including traveling from Canada to key family places in England ect.).

Finally, I started into genealogy just as the internet really started to become a major tool and I found unimpeachable government documents online that helped alot. Given I live in northern Ontario, distances and expense absolutely prevented me from even data mining family sites in southern Ontario, but I was able to connect with 3 female cousins of various lines and we did some really great collaborative work.

In any case, this is generally how its worked out for me...

I can fully ID 15 of 16 Great Great Grandparents and the only one that partially escapes me is my paternal grandmothers furthest MTdna ancestor...I know that GGGma's first name 'Isabella' and birth/death/place date (Duppin, Kilberry Parrish Scotland) but do not have her maiden name
8 of my 5th gen gparents are as far as I can get
18 of my 6th
17 of my 7th
9 of my 8th
6 of my 10th
6 of my 11th
3 of my 12th
of these ancestors, I have at least their first name, but not always any other data

my 4 eldest known ancestors all come from England:
- 1 from Yorkshire in 1648-Michael Trenholm
-3 from Devonshire (and from the huge fishing fleets that used Newfoundland and her fisheries as a 2nd home)
James Puddicombe 1610, Bovey Tracey Devon
'Johane', wife of M. Halfeyard 1598
Michael Halfeyard 1596

I have lots of mysteries around my Y line and it is one of the shortest geniologies I have, thus the never ending hope that some day, a long lost Whalen cousin with an excellent pen and paper trail will finally get tested and match me...been waiting 8 years now for that match, I can do another 20 standing on my head (as they say in prison)
:)

Mike

Erik
07-13-2014, 02:25 AM
Not enough. I've documented all that I could, but there's still a lot of mysteries surrounding my family.

CelticGerman
07-13-2014, 08:14 AM
Well, I will give the numbers concerning my children, considering them as generation 1. From generation 2 to 5 all their ancestors are known. Following generations: 6 = 93.7%; 7 = 84.3%; 8 = 68.7%; 9 = 47.2%; 10 = 27.7%; 11 = 16.4%; 12 = 9.7%; 13 = 5.0%; 14 = 2.3%; 15 = 0.7%; 16 = 0.2%; 17 to 19 = 0.0.... %.

19 generations represent 524,286 ancestors of my children, if I am right, of which only 1424 (0.27%) are known. I have detected more or less 70 cases of implex (double counting of ancestors), starting in 10th generation.

71.7% of known ancestors are from the maternal side (above all French) and 28.3% from the paternal side (me and my ancestors, above all North Germans, some Danes, Czechs, Swiss, Palatines, Thuringians as well).

My oldest known ancestor seems to be Clawes von Elm, who is mentioned in a document in 1483 in Trittau (east of Hamburg).

Humanist
07-13-2014, 08:27 AM
Many of us in the ME cannot really compete with folks from Europe when it comes to documentation. I have some information on the following people in my family tree:

4/4 grandparents
8/8 great-grandparents
5/16 2nd great-grandparents
1/32 3rd great-grandparents

geebee
07-13-2014, 09:54 AM
I can get only to my 2nd great grandparents before any "missing links" begin to appear. But even before that I think I've run into a possible snag.

There seem to be *some* indications that my maternal grandfather's father was not the man married to his mother. It isn't definite, and there are in fact some counter-indications. On 23andMe I have a "second cousin" who seems to be related to me on my grandfather's side. We share 2.78%, which is just belong the expected "range" for second cousins, according to 23andMe (2.85% - 5.04%), but a bit higher than for second cousins once removed.

So far, the only connection we can find is not by blood at all. The brother of my cousin's grandfather was married to the sister of my grandfather. I've considered the possibility that the cousin is in fact this couples' child, and that he was simply raised by a granduncle and grandaunt. However, both older relatives and available documentation suggest that the couple never had any children.

In addition, I share a small segment with at least one person who appears to be related through an ancestor of my great grandfather -- I mean the man who's supposed to be my maternal grandfather's father. If this is correct, my grandfather can't be an NPE.

Still, it can't be forgotten that the further back we go, the more likely that NPEs of some kind will turn up. Once this happens, it affects all the "ancestors" upstream. But take heart: eventually you can get to the point at which you probably are X's descendant, if anyone alive today is.

Stephen1986
07-13-2014, 11:42 AM
At the moment, I know of -

4/4 Grandparents
8/8 Great Grandparents
14/16 2G Grandparents
27/32 3G Grandparents
52/64 4G Grandparents
72/128 5G Grandparents
66/256 6G Grandparents

Many of my lines go back to the 1700s, whilst one goes back to 1490 and a 13x great grandfather. Others end at the turn of the 20th century.

Kwheaton
07-13-2014, 12:41 PM
For fourty years I searched for a 2nd great grandmother from Norway. Last year when she was found her tree because of the incredible records in Norway is more complete than my own!

I have not updated this lately but at last count

2) Parents 2/2

3) Grandparents 4/4

4) Great Grandparents 8/8

5) 2nd Great Grandparents 16/16

6) 3rd Great Grandparents 32/32 100%

7) 4th Great Grandparents 52/64 81%

8) 5th Great Grandparents 88/128 68%

9) 6th Great Grandparents 131/256 51%

10) 7th Great Grandparents 195/512 38%


I have some pedigree collapse about the 6th generation and becoming widespread by the 10th. In one case I have 4 lines of descent from the same couple.