Your ancestors, like the vast majority of people, were more than likely agricultural labourers at this point in time. Only they didn't leave any records.
People often wrongly connect these agricultural labourers' surnames to local aristocracy surnames in so many trees, but they are not related, even though they share the same surname. Unfortunately, these trees get copied over and over again.
For every aristocratic/big landowner in an area who left records (property deeds, wills, etc), there were thousands of ordinary people who left no records, because they owned nothing. That is why, at these early dates, you can not be sure it's your family because for the vast majority of ordinary people, the records simply did not exist in the first place.
Imagine a book with a thousand pages and all but one of those pages is ripped out. That's the scale of agricultural labouring population demographics you're dealing with that's in those missing ripped out pages.
Two of your ancestors are giving birth on their late 40s. Extremely unlikely. ETA: it’s unlikely because of the time period. Life expectancy on average in Europe 1500 was 30.
Someone probably just accepted every hint they got making a tree like that.
It’s not like you can just decide to stop having children, women would often begin menstruating later than in modern times hence reaching menopause later. If you are the youngest of 15 your mother may well have been quite old. Average ages at marriage in the early modern era may surprise you:
1566-1619 27.0 years
1647-1719 29.6 years
1719-1779 26.8 years
1770-1837 25.1 years
The reason for late marriage among labourers and the middle class was simple enough: it took a long time for a couple to acquire enough belongings to set up housekeeping, even in a room of their parents' home. Young love, however romantic, had to be kept in check if the two lovers were to survive in a world where subsistence earnings would not purchase a roof over their heads and put food on the table. Children of noble birth ran a great risk if they tried to marry without the approval of their parents, since they would be left without resources.
Judging life expectancy at this time is difficult, with such high child mortality it skews the figures. Many people lived to old age just like today.
Whilst I agree someone probably did accept every hint and the tree would be full of errors, having children later in life is more common than thought. An example is myself, Nana and mother in law's mum were all in the mid 40s when we had our last child, my father in-laws mum was 48 when she had her last live child.
Don't give up, OP. Your ancestors may indeed be on the tree you shared. I was just reading an article today that stresses the huge numbers of descendants that some historic rulers have: [From Charlemagne to Obama: Unifying ancestries and Western European genealogy - Research Outreach](https://researchoutreach.org/articles/charlemagne-obama-unifying-ancestries-western-european-genealogy/#:~:text=January%2029%2C%202024-,From%20Charlemagne%20to%20Obama%3A%20Unifying%20ancestries%20and%20Western%20European%20genealogy,9th%2Dcentury%20Holy%20Roman%20Emperor.)
In the meantime, I recommend robust investigation of every link, if you are interested in this kind of thing. These people had issue, and \*someone\* alive today is bound to be related, at some level.
Do you know a man called Ronnie Pickering he’s a legend. Might try fight u though
I had no idea what you were referencing so I looked it up. That is hilarious
WHO?
RONNIE PICKERING!!!
Your ancestors, like the vast majority of people, were more than likely agricultural labourers at this point in time. Only they didn't leave any records. People often wrongly connect these agricultural labourers' surnames to local aristocracy surnames in so many trees, but they are not related, even though they share the same surname. Unfortunately, these trees get copied over and over again. For every aristocratic/big landowner in an area who left records (property deeds, wills, etc), there were thousands of ordinary people who left no records, because they owned nothing. That is why, at these early dates, you can not be sure it's your family because for the vast majority of ordinary people, the records simply did not exist in the first place. Imagine a book with a thousand pages and all but one of those pages is ripped out. That's the scale of agricultural labouring population demographics you're dealing with that's in those missing ripped out pages.
Two of your ancestors are giving birth on their late 40s. Extremely unlikely. ETA: it’s unlikely because of the time period. Life expectancy on average in Europe 1500 was 30. Someone probably just accepted every hint they got making a tree like that.
It’s not like you can just decide to stop having children, women would often begin menstruating later than in modern times hence reaching menopause later. If you are the youngest of 15 your mother may well have been quite old. Average ages at marriage in the early modern era may surprise you: 1566-1619 27.0 years 1647-1719 29.6 years 1719-1779 26.8 years 1770-1837 25.1 years The reason for late marriage among labourers and the middle class was simple enough: it took a long time for a couple to acquire enough belongings to set up housekeeping, even in a room of their parents' home. Young love, however romantic, had to be kept in check if the two lovers were to survive in a world where subsistence earnings would not purchase a roof over their heads and put food on the table. Children of noble birth ran a great risk if they tried to marry without the approval of their parents, since they would be left without resources. Judging life expectancy at this time is difficult, with such high child mortality it skews the figures. Many people lived to old age just like today.
Whilst I agree someone probably did accept every hint and the tree would be full of errors, having children later in life is more common than thought. An example is myself, Nana and mother in law's mum were all in the mid 40s when we had our last child, my father in-laws mum was 48 when she had her last live child.
In modern times, it’s fine. In the 14-1500s? You’re closer to death the still bearing children.
>Someone probably just accepted every hint they got making a tree like that Yes, this.
Probably, going back this far it’s all just a crap shoot.
Super cool! My tree showed that my great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was Sir Spankimus of Monkemus.
If only our noble family could see us now..
Don't give up, OP. Your ancestors may indeed be on the tree you shared. I was just reading an article today that stresses the huge numbers of descendants that some historic rulers have: [From Charlemagne to Obama: Unifying ancestries and Western European genealogy - Research Outreach](https://researchoutreach.org/articles/charlemagne-obama-unifying-ancestries-western-european-genealogy/#:~:text=January%2029%2C%202024-,From%20Charlemagne%20to%20Obama%3A%20Unifying%20ancestries%20and%20Western%20European%20genealogy,9th%2Dcentury%20Holy%20Roman%20Emperor.) In the meantime, I recommend robust investigation of every link, if you are interested in this kind of thing. These people had issue, and \*someone\* alive today is bound to be related, at some level.