Run out of hints on Ancestry

[filka]

Many years ago I discovered that my great grandfather was born in Shoreditch Workhouse in 1845, evidently because my 3GF died aged 23 just a few months before he was born. Since then I've been hooked on genealogy and (my) family history.

My GGF and his elder brother both had large families which have spread across the globe, and its all pretty easily researchable through Ancestry, with access to census data and births, marriages and deaths from about 1840 onwards.

But I seem to be drawing a big blank about going back in time beyond the 1840s. I have 4GF's/4GM's marriage in 1810 from the church marriage register, but have resolutely failed to find either their births or deaths. I know 4GF died before 1840 because he was listed as deceased on 3GF's marriage certificate.

From 1820s through to 1920s the family is heavily based in the Hackney, Whitechapel, East End of London area, and generally is very poor.

Any idea of how to research earlier periods?

Thanks

It's always worth identifying all the siblings of your direct ancestors, and following them forward as well as back. Birthplaces given in the census in 1851 or later can lead you back to the original home parish. And note everyone in the household - the person you don't recognise might be Cousin Joe or Auntie Mary visiting from the country.

The problem with baptisms is that some people weren't baptised at all, or were not baptised in the Church of England. And were not necessarily baptised as newborns, so year of baptism might not be year of birth.

If they had even a little bit of property, someone might have made a will. Wills can be good for linking generations, if legacies are left to grandchildren. And once you've identified a parish, you might find them in the parish records as ratepayers or in receipt of poor relief or being paid for carrying out work on the church, perhaps.

Anyone who's interested in maps should have a look at this site: maps.nls.uk/os/ It's the National Library of Scotland, but not just maps of Scotland. Don't get into the historic 25in maps of London unless you have plenty of time to spare!

It's definitely worth looking at newspapers (as long as the surname isn't Smith or something), because all sorts of people, rich or poor, made the news. (I have one ancestor whose house was struck by lightening, for example!)

FMP has newspapers, but your local library might have a newspaper subscription too. My library enables me to look at some newspapers (British Library Newspapers through Gale) at home, rather than having to go in.

My great grandfather's funeral was mentioned in the local newspaper over 100 years ago. From that I know what friendly societies he belonged to, who exactly was at the funeral and exactly what was written on the plaque on his coffin and lots of other interesting facts. It was fascinating.

I am also wondering if it would be helpful to reframe your research. Getting as far back as possible is only one strand of research. You could also choose to dig a lot deeper into the lives of people you have already identified, looking at where they lived, what was going on in their local community, occupation or education records.

You would be surprised what you will find in newspapers. At a time when there was no telly and no radio, EVERYTHING was reported in the newspapers. Mundane things like Thomas Smith getting into a fight with John Brown, minutes of meetings of clubs or societies, farmers selling cattle, all sorts of stuff.

I treat all Ancestry trees with a huge degree of scepticism. Some are great and have lots of sources attached to the "facts" which give them greater credibility. Others are just nonsense - children born to parents who are aged 7 or 8 at the time, children born on a different continent to where their parents always lived... just rubbish. Many genealogists call the people who build these trees "click and collect" genealogists because they just accept every hint and build a mahoosive tree which is all unreferenced and unsourced.

I've recently started mine again and find MyHeritage more exact than Ancestry. Last time I used Ancestry.
MH also has a much more European focus, their database for Europe is much bigger than their US database whereas Ancestry is the opposite.
I also agree that FamilySearch is also very accurate generally. From facts I actually know, what I've found both on FS and MH tie in perfectly. I tend not to look too closely at other people's trees until I'm sure myself.

Re: baptisms.
It's also the case that back in the day, a lot of baptism dates were recorded as birth dates.