PDA

View Full Version : English Geneology Before 1600s



heathen_warlord
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008, 09:17 PM
I have my family traced back till about the 1600s. A certain man named Humphrey Turner, Born in Essex,England, Relocated to Plymouth. I cannot find any information going back any further.
Any sites that are free that may be of some help?

Patrioten
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008, 09:35 PM
http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp

I found a Humphrey Turner born 1593, could he be the one?

http://www.familysearch.org/eng/search/AF/individual_record.asp?recid=7164531&lds=0&region=-1&regionfriendly=&frompage=99

Ĉmeric
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008, 09:37 PM
Try Rootsweb (http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com), specifically their section (http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/) that contains familytrees. A quick glance shows your Humphrey Turner to be the son of John Turner & Joan (nee Lilly). It doesn't appear anyone has traced it further back. Tracing your ancestry in England pass 1600 is tricky. Wills are useful documents for tracing ancestry back beyond that date, but only people with property had any need for wills. If you can trace your ancestry back beyond 1600 in England it is mostly to be among the middleclass & the aristocracy. But many of the 20,000 settlers that went to New England between 1620-1642 were from the middleclasses & some were descended from the younger, poorer branches of noble families.

heathen_warlord
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008, 09:37 PM
That's him.
It goes two more generations back, how valid is this site?

Loyalist
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008, 09:38 PM
Is this him? http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:1798697&id=I1370

Patrioten
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008, 09:41 PM
That's him.
It goes two more generations back, how valid is this site?I would recommend you to find additional sources or information which can help you verify the information on the site. The information there has been composed by the Mormons, from scanned church records and the likes, and they are pretty serious about getting it right I imagine, but there is always room for human error.

Angharad
Wednesday, September 24th, 2008, 05:40 AM
I have Humphrey Turner in my tree too.

Since his son John married Mayflower pilgrim descendant Mary Brewster it is pretty safe to assume that he has been thoroughly researched by professional genealogists and that his ancestry is accurate.

I'm not sure why they haven't found anything more on his line though, maybe the records are missing.

heathen_warlord
Wednesday, September 24th, 2008, 10:35 PM
I have Humphrey Turner in my tree too.


That's cool, so do you share the same surname? I know I have some not to distant relatives in California (Though I don't know them to well)

Angharad
Wednesday, September 24th, 2008, 10:51 PM
No, someone from my grandmother's family married his great grand-daughter. So, I'd be a very distant relative to you. :)

Sigurd
Thursday, September 25th, 2008, 02:03 AM
Another useful thing, if all you have is family records, is asking the church of the localities your ancestor was born. Usually, people would be baptised within the year of their birth (so also helps to the year of birth), and it would state its parents, not seldom with their birth place included too, so that can always help - if you haven't done that yet, of course.

It's very useful in Germany, where all this was registered - the only thing with Germany of course being that you often really can't trace your ancestry back beyond the 1600s, thanks to the Thirty Year War: I even have a line of considerable nobility (!) there which I cannot trace further than about 1600 in direct line (it's obvious to who was the "last common ancestor" between several lines a while before, but for several generations, records are lost). In that respect, Britain is in a lucky position here: If there ever were records, chances are that they are still in existence. :)

kilroyturner
Thursday, February 11th, 2010, 04:48 AM
The Surname "Turner" is a Norman name is it not? I was just wondering because my surname is Turner as well and my father has some family papers that say that the name came from the Normans. Is this true for most people with the name Turner? Also I remember it saying something about the "black castle" in Normandy? Is there any truth to this? Just wondering.

Gardisten
Thursday, February 11th, 2010, 06:57 PM
From what I can find, it is a Norman name. There is a book called "The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families" which may shed some light on this, and briefly discuss the earliest documented people with this name. Given the fact that a considerable amount of records are still extant in England, it is often possible for people to trace their English ancestry back to this period; it's not uncommon to be able to trace back to some royalty, too. Perhaps even Charlemagne.

Ellaelie
Monday, June 14th, 2010, 11:29 AM
Given the fact that a considerable amount of records are still extant in England, it is often possible for people to trace their English ancestry back to this period; it's not uncommon to be able to trace back to some royalty, too. Perhaps even Charlemagne.
My great-great grandfather's maternal line traces back to Charlemagne. I always held some doubt for obvious reasons, but you're saying it's not uncommon? :thumbup

michael
Monday, June 14th, 2010, 12:01 PM
I have been working on my genealogy for 30+ years and I would caution everyone to not jump to any conclusion without at least 2 or more verifiable documents ie. Wills, Family Bibles, land purchase documents, Census, military service etc, etc, etc.

Obviously, the farther back you go, the harder it becomes and even linking into a royal line is not necessarily as clear cut as it may seem.

Sites like the Mormon one mentioned earlier in this thread are only as good as their accuracy. That is to say, the documents microfilmed are accurate in and of themselves but many of the family trees that have been built with these documents have very serious errors because people have a tendency to just copy the work of someone that has gone before them and inaccuracies perpetuate ad infinitum. The same holds true for the biggest genealogy sites on the WWW eg., Ancestry.com

The bottom line is when you get back to the 1600's or earlier go slow and double check everything with verifiable documents and not just someones best guess. You will get farther faster with this method than with any other.

As a additional thought, consider getting your DNA done and you will at least have a regions in the world to concentrate your searches in.

Ellaelie
Wednesday, June 16th, 2010, 08:57 PM
I have been working on my genealogy for 30+ years and I would caution everyone to not jump to any conclusion without at least 2 or more verifiable documents ie. Wills, Family Bibles, land purchase documents, Census, military service etc, etc, etc.

Obviously, the farther back you go, the harder it becomes and even linking into a royal line is not necessarily as clear cut as it may seem.

Sites like the Mormon one mentioned earlier in this thread are only as good as their accuracy. That is to say, the documents microfilmed are accurate in and of themselves but many of the family trees that have been built with these documents have very serious errors because people have a tendency to just copy the work of someone that has gone before them and inaccuracies perpetuate ad infinitum. The same holds true for the biggest genealogy sites on the WWW eg., Ancestry.com

The bottom line is when you get back to the 1600's or earlier go slow and double check everything with verifiable documents and not just someones best guess. You will get farther faster with this method than with any other.

As a additional thought, consider getting your DNA done and you will at least have a regions in the world to concentrate your searches in.
Besides the primary sources, what other resources would you suggest? :)