A long reply, but perhaps of interest to some ...
I became interested in my own genealogy as a child. When I was seven,
my grandfather had a big 80th birthday party which about 60 relatives
attended. I couldn't understand how he could have so many relatives and
my mother drew me a basic family tree showing one set of great
grandparents and all their descendants. Sadly I've no longer have this
tree, but it seemed a really good way of presenting the information and
helped my understand why some of my second cousins – people on my
generation – had grandchildren who were older than me.
By the time I was into my teens, even though I knew I wanted a career in
science, history was one of the favourite subjects as school, but our
syllabus focused exclusively on 20th century history – basically from
the Boer War to the Vietnam War. My final two years at school were
mostly spent in hospital, and with very few things to occupy my time, I
read a huge amount on all sorts of subjects, including a lot on
mediaeval European history. I found the royal family trees in these
fascinating, and in particular how they were often very different to my
own due to the inbreeding and intermarrying in so many of these families.
As my research into own family history progressed, I found myself
frustrated that increasingly many people were just names on pages.
Thinking back to the tree my mother made me when I was seven, most of
them were people I had met, and even those who had died before I was
born, I felt I knew indirectly because I'd heard so much about them.
Going back one more generation, that remained true because I had been
very close to my grandfather and he had told me lots stories from his
childhood. It was also true of the mediaeval lines I saw in history
books as these were frequently important historical figures, and when I
was at university with one of the UK's copyright libraries so close that
it blocked the evening sun from my first year rooms, I largely switched
my focus to royal genealogy rather than my own, and tended to prefer the
late mediaeval period in Western Europe.
I got back into my own genealogy some years after graduating when the
Internet started to become a useful research tool and when I had the
money to travel to record offices or order records by post more often.
With more censuses coming available and being more able to find family
wills, I started to build a greater understanding of more of earlier
relatives. But even today, it's really only the generations born in the
last 225 years where I can normally find even most basic biographic
details such as their occupations. Further back, that's true in only a
minority of cases, but it is this minority that interests me. Perhaps
that means I'm a family historian more than a genealogist – certainly
that's a distinction I've heard others make, though I don't really
recognise it myself.
The lines where I have more than just names back into the 18th century
tended to be those families that seemed to be of a slightly higher
social class – they were the yeoman farmers rather than the labourers,
with very occasionally someone somewhat optimistically calling himself a
gentleman. Getting such lines back to late Elizabethan times never
seemed difficult, and with wills, inventories and manorial records, I
felt I knew a little bit about these people. But for a decade or more,
I could never get back beyond the late Elizabethan period. This
coincided with time when I had lots of other things going on and
genealogy – whether my own or otherwise – increasingly took a back seat.
My interest in my own genealogy was rekindled when I got an email from
someone with what purported a line back from one of my ancestors back to
one of the Plantagenet kings. I forget which now. It didn't take long
to see that the early generations which gave rise to the Plantagenet
descent were abject nonsense, stitching together three or four different
families which happened to have similar names. But the most recent
generations matched what I knew and seemed plausible for at least a few
more generations further, so I researched them further to see where the
truth ended and the nonsense began. The answer was again late
Elizabethan times. But this time the family seemed to be on a slightly
higher rung of the social ladder. In the late 17th and early 18th
centuries they were fairly consistently being described as gentry, and
their names appeared in Chancery proceedings which were a new source to me.
For several years this branch of my family became my primary focus of
research and I hoped I might finally have a line where I could get back
to the early 16th century with more than just bare names and dates. By
now, the Internet Archive were putting lots of Victorian books online,
including many of published visitations, and one of these included the
early generations of the family I was looking at. In one generation it
had a man who I thought might be my ancestor marrying the illegitimate
daughter of a 15th century knight in the next county. That knight
appeared on Genealogics which gave him a descent from Henry III. In
setting out to disprove one Plantagenet descent I inadvertently found
another one, albeit as yet tentative. There were still two links in the
early 17th century that, while likely, I did not consider to be proven
satisfactorily, and I knew enough not to trust the visitation pedigree
without further corroboration. I also wanted to verify the steps in
Leo's database.
Over time I managed to prove each step of this descent to my
satisfaction, and I wrote it up to be serialised in my local
genealogical society's journal. The final part of the line to Henry III
involved various members of the nobility, and in writing that bit up, I
concluded I wasn't actually very interested in them. It seemed to me
there probably wasn't a whole lot more to find out about a 13th or 14th
century earl, and if there was, I was probably not well equipped to do
it. I'd followed this group for long enough to be frustrated by the
frequent posts from people seeking to fill a gap by over-interpreting a
few scant pieces of evidence – essentially refusing to accept that
something might have to remain unknown unless some new source is found –
and didn't want to add myself to that number.
But I had enjoyed researching the family of the 15th century knight, and
more importantly, I felt I had discovered details about his family that
I had not seen elsewhere. Moreover, a lot of what can be found on the
internet about his paternal ancestry is total garbage, deriving from the
fantasies of a American genealogist named John Cox Underwood a little
over a century ago. His concocted agnatic ancestry included a passenger
on Mayflower, a cleric burnt at the stake during Queen Mary's reign, and
some of the Norman Counts of Sicily; on the way, it included parts of
the family I had been researching. Needless so say, in the Internet has
not improved things, with one of the more credulous websites extending
the direct paternal line back to a frost giant from Norse mythology,
said to be a 2nd century king in what is now Finland.
Putting Norse mythology aside, I initially assumed this line was
probably mostly accurate but with one or two breaks where two people
with similar names had been conflated. This turned out not to be the
case. Of the nine generations spanning the 14th to 16th centuries, I
think three were entirely invented by Underwood, one was invented a few
centuries earlier, and two more are confused amalgams of two or three
people; just three were real people, though their details are often
wrong. In total, I think at six different families have been conflated
in just these generations. I've spent a lot of time researching these
families, trying to assess the evidence objectively, long after it was
clear that they were not related to me. That, for me, was the
transition when my interest in mediaeval genealogy turned into active
research into families other than my own.
Since then, I haven't abandoned my own more recent family tree, but my
mediaeval research has focused almost exclusively on non-relatives or
people who are at most very distantly related to me. This has
principally been into the knightly families of Hampshire, Wiltshire and
Dorset in the last century or two of the mediaeval period, extending
into Tudor period. It may not sound as exciting as the earlier periods
that I know many of the contributors to this group enjoy, but it's a
period and area I feel I understand moderately well. Many of these
families have a low enough profile that they've not been researched in
any real depth in recent decades, so there's scope to make new
discoveries and correct mistakes in the current understanding, even with
the time and skills I have. I've enjoyed researching these families at
least as much my research into my own family, though I do admit to
getting a little bit of satisfaction when I discover an unexpected
connection to my own families.
Richard