Census Questions

Anyone who thinks they've gone back further than maybe the mid 1700s is somewhat deluded I think. Unless you come from a titled family who recorded their tree, or had some other irrefutable evidence of documented parentage. The common folk were simply jotted down in the local church register as 'John and Mary Smith baptised Edward Smith' or whatever. There is often no way of knowing for sure who those people were, especially if the name was a common one in the area. The marriage entries didn't even record the parents names!

Chestnut It is indeed difficult to get back further than 1837, but it's not impossible. I've spent days poring over church records in records offices and can get back to the mid 16th century on some of my lines. Families tended to stay in the same area and whole groups can be mapped. As I mentioned above, I have a complete set going back to my gt gt grandparents, which is a result of my own research and a couple of hints from distant cousins, which I've then checked for myself. Moreover, my maiden name was very unusual. There have only ever been a couple of hundred of us born with the name and it was easy to trace with church, parish and other records. Fortunately, I don't appear to have any Smiths or Browns. I'm not deluded, but I am meticulous and like a dog with a bone when it comes to tracing records.

PS. DNA testing showing that I share most of my DNA with people in France and Germany is apparently quite common for white British people.

www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/18/genetic-study-30-percent-white-british-dna-german-ancestry

What it doesn't mean is that I am "ethnically" French or German and actually proves what an imprecise term ethnicity is.

Why ethnicity is just an estimate:

dna-explained.com/2018/12/28/ethnicity-is-just-an-estimate-yes-really/

growstuff I have also gone back to 2 x great grandparents and in some cases two generations further. This is all fully verified and cross-referenced, but you mention having one unusual surname when there are 16 surnames involved, and 32 surnames if you go back another generation. So having one unusual name is neither here nor there, what about the other 15 names (or 32)? We have also studied family groups in certain locations, but where there is a nest of one family in one area it can be impossible. If there are several 'John Gray' babies baptised in one village around the same time there is often no way of knowing which is yours. You may be lucky with one or two family lines but there are 16 or 32 surnames involved.

We came from a titled family on one line so it actually goes a long way back, around the twelfth century. Some interesting tombs etc and paintings but you don’t know how good the likenesses were at all. I am sure the artist wouldn’t portray ugliness, more than their life is worth.

I take your point Chestnut. The 16 surnames involved (in order to find gt grandparents) have all been researched by conventional means and some have been a slog. You're right that the information before 1837 is (for some lines) difficult to find.

What I meant was that it's been possible to go back much further with my own maiden name because it's so unusual. They were relatively wealthy and there is information in wills, directories, poll and property records and other sources. You're right about most of the other lines. All of them stop at different dates. I'm absolutely confident about my gt gt grandparents, but don't have the complete "set" of my 3 x gt grandparents, although I keep on trying.

I do know that all 16 of my 2 x gt grandparents were born in England - with no sign of any French or German influence, despite my DNA test result. I always tick "British" on forms because that's what I am and how I identify, despite what my DNA result seems to suggest.

PS. I understand what you mean by a cluster of "John Gray" babies and I have an example of that for one line in the 16th century. I'm in a permanent dispute with a distant cousin about one particular John X . That's where census records can sort out family groups. Fortunately, it hasn't occurred that often. Despite that, we both agree that the dispute ancestor was English.